Talk:List of replaced loanwords in Turkish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for List of replaced loanwords in Turkish: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] List
This page was created from the list at Talk:Turkish language. The article referred readers to this list on the talk page, which is inappropriate, so I have relocated it here. JPD (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Half the Ottoman words are only in romanized form. I would like to see that changed.--Fox Mccloud 02:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- May I ask why? Why do you think it would be useful or needed to have these in the old script? Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't look good having it only halfway complete.--Fox Mccloud 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've been working on that. I've only got halfway through so far, and will continue to provide the script as time permits. Patience, patience, Fox McCloud. —Saposcat 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks.--Fox Mccloud 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modern spelling
I suggest retaining the current spelling of words of Arabic or Persian origin. Spellings such as harb and nisbet are outdated. Instead, you might want to add a column, giving the modern spelling of a word, if it is still used. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The recent changes by User:Saposcat, such as tadilat into ta'dîlât or ömür into ömr might be useful for linguistic purposes, but these are not the correct spelling of these words in Turkish (i.e. they should be spelled tadilat and ömür, clearly specified by the official spelling guide by TDK, as both words are still used in Turkish with their new counterparts). I hope Saposcat could change these back into their proper spelling, and add a new column if these arabesque renderings are absolutely needed, but I don't see why they should be, actually. I feel the need to stress again that the spellings tenbel, ömr and others recently changed are wrong spellings of Turkish words written using the Turkish alphabet (I think it is already clear that the alphabet used is the Turkish alphabet, by the use of ö and ü). Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree as well. The only reason I haven't added that extra column yet has been because of time constraints, but when I have the time and inclination, I'll split the Latin-alphabet spellings into something like "Transliteration" (for things like "tenbel" and "ömr") and "Modern Turkish Spelling" ("tembel" and "ömür"). The main reason I wanted to keep the strictly transliterated version is because that is the way one (usually) sees the words written out in serious academic-type works that deal with Ottoman texts. Be patient and bear with me on the issue (or, alternatively, just be bold and make changes yourself). Cheers. —Saposcat 04:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I don't like that "be bold" motto applied to every single situation, I just wanted to hear what you would say first. But I do not want to see wrong spelled Turkish words published on the web on an "encyclopedia" and I'll now try to add a new column for the proper Turkish spelling, and you could add the old script versions and their transliterations to the first column, if that's OK with you. Since about half of the list lacks the old script and its transliteration (in the way you're proposing), this would mean that the entries in the first and second columns will be identical for these, at the moment. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Words of Arabic/Persian vs. Western origin
This page is getting better, I think it's very useful to have a list like this.
I believe that, in line with the article title, the stress should not be as much on the Ottoman Turkish (i.e., originally Arabic and/or Persian) words, but on Öztürkçe, because an attempt was made to purify the Turkish language not only of Arabic/Persian words, but sometimes of French words as well. It should be noted, however, that sometimes one foreign word was replaced with another.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an extra column for including the original language? I am not too fond of the way that is indicated right now, with the asterisks. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kolay vs. basit
I don't think kolay should be considered an Öztürkçe alternative for basit, the first meaning "easy", the latter "simple". Though related, they're not synonymous. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, the dominant meaning of kolay is "easy", while basit can mean both "easy" and "simple". In that sense, kolay is the alternative of basit for the meaning "easy". Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transcription of Arabic/Persian alphabet
I have modified a few transcriptions, like ﻉ and غ. Because not everyone knows the Arabic/Persian alphabet, and we have a separate column for the current spelling anyway, I think it would be useful to provide a full transcription, distinguishing between ﺕ t and ﻁ ṭ, between hamza and and ﻉ, etc.
I wonder how we should deal with the various [z] sounds. And should long vowels be indicated with a macron or a circumflex? Perhaps a Persian transcription system could be followed, since most consonants sound more or less the same in both languages. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- As for transcription, overall I myself lean towards the ALA-LC's standards, which can be found here in downloadable PDF format. Actually, there is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic) about the transcription standard(s) to use across Wikipedia for Ottoman Turkish; feel free to make your opinion known there as well if you like. —Saposcat 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your reply. How about moving that discussion to a different area? I don't think that it should be held on a page that deals with Arabic. Both because of its different pronunciation and its cultural importance, I believe Ottoman Turkish deserves a distinct treatment. It makes no sense, in my opinion, to transliterate a word like مذهب as maḏhab or madhhab when it is pronounced as mezhep in Turkish. However, I would appreciate a more detailed transcription method than what is currently used in Turkey.
[edit] Inclusion of Persian/Arabic Script
Thank you for this page. I am doing research into shared vocabulary between Turkish and Persian and it's important for me to see the Arabic (Persian) spelling of the items because I sometimes don't recognize the words from their Turkish pronunciation. For example, I would have never equated "akit" with the Persian 'ǣaqd.
Also, to give you an example of older and younger generations, I learned Turkish from my parents (born 1908 and 1923) in the US. I then learned Persian in my 20's and this helped me expand the vocabulary of both. My husband (who is younger than me) recently moved here from Turkey, and he has an appalling lack of understanding of the so-called "Ottoman" vocabulary I use. I think his Turkish vocabulary looks so lifeless compared to mine, even though I'm speaking immigrant Turkish.
128.8.41.219 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Ilhan Cagri, University of Maryland
