Talk:Old Turkic

The Issyk inscription bears a resemblance to Turk. I haven't looked for a good source, but its pretty exciting nonetheless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk_kurgan unsigned comment added by 70.16.67.202 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

i have translated the sentence, but it would be better if a native speaker of english corrected it (just in case) Achechen (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to Marcel Erdal's Grammar of Old Turkic. Please keep it - Monumenta Altaica site owner assured me (by email) that it is used with author's permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.15.187 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The ISO 639-3 code for Old Turkic is otk, while the code for Old Uighur is oui. Should we start a new article for Old Uighur? --✉ Hello World! 05:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

: I think so. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this 回鹘文? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

bir

ikki

üç

dörd

béş

altı

yéddi

sekkiz

doqquz

on

this is the corect numbers writing in qxq, please change it to the true way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.53.159 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)

https://archive.org/details/dertrkischetext00albegoog

Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)

https://archive.org/details/inscriptionsdel00thomgoog

Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)

https://archive.org/details/berdiekktr00banguoft

Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)

https://archive.org/details/wrterverzeichni00donngoog

Rajmaan (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish work

Orhun abideleri

https://archive.org/details/orhunabideleri00yaziuoft

History of Turks

https://archive.org/details/trktrh00yazi

History of Ottomans

https://archive.org/details/osmnltrh01yazi

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Yaziksiz%2C+Necib+%27Asim%2C+1861-1935%22

People who were called Uyghur "Huihu" 回鶻 at the time of the Uyghur Khaganate, get linked to Uyghur Khaganate. So Bayanchur Khan will get linked to Uyghur Khaganate for his ethnicity.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘

People who were called wèiwùér 畏兀儿 at the time of the Kingdom of Qocho, get linked to Kingdom of Qocho. So Wang Baobao's mother's ethnicity is linked to Kingdom of Qocho in Chinese wikipedia.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/畏兀儿

Note that Old Uyghur alphabet is called Huihu script and not Old Wéiwú'ěr script in Chinese wikipedia.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘文字母

Modern Uyghurs get linked to the modern Uyghur people article

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/维吾尔族

The Old Uyghur language has its own separate article from modern Uyghur, on the Chinese, German, Russian and Uzbek wikipedias but nobody created an article about it on English wikipedia yet.

Chinese wikipedia calls it "Huihu" language 回鹘语, and indicates that this was spoken in the Kingdom of Qocho (Gaochang)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/回鹘语

There are also a Chinese, Russian, and Turkish wikipedia articles on the language of the Turkic Khaganate, Chinese wikipedia calls it "Tujue" language. Note that it is an entirely different article from the Old Turkic language article.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/突厥语

We need to create a separate "Old Uyghur language" article, and an article on the language of the Turkic Khaganate which would both be separate from Old Turkic language article.

In fact the Chinese article linked to the English Old Turkic language article is a disambiguation page, it lists Tujue language, 回紇 Huihe language (alternate name for Uyghur Khaganate language), and (Gaochang) Huihu language

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/突厥－回鹘语

Rajmaan (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no relation between Brahmi and Old Turkic language(s). Maybe the writing system, Göktürk script has some similarities with Brahmi and Runic alphabet, but nothing more. Need to fix this.

--Kizilgerilla (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The text says there were nine vowels, but only eight are in the table. Is the ninth vowel a lowered e? Mats (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

: Yes, I'm asking myself the same question. It could be a /æ/ similar to the Azeri ⟨ə⟩, but I really cannot say.–Jérôme (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Turkic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928051549/http://www.ats.lmu.de/lingtools/milbdb/files/index.php?file=turkicold.pdf to http://www.ats.lmu.de/lingtools/milbdb/files/index.php?file=turkicold.pdf
• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://book.heze.cc/date%5CG%5CA2062978.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Wp/otk in the incubator has been deleted EnnoymousUser (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The lists of suffixes are pretty much useless without glosses/explanations of their meaning.Bill (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like a mixture of different romanization systems is being used in this article. Even within a single table, <č> and <ç> are both being used, and <ı> and <ï> are both being used (and must be different from <i> and <ü>). Also, <ğ> is being used. The language, as described in this article, doesn't have enough phonemes to need all these letters, and no allophones they might be representing were not described in the phonology section (I can see that <ğ> is meant to be a lenited back allophone of /g/, which the page on "Old Turkic script" describes as /ɣ/.) Even if there is only a single romanization in use, it is not clearly explained, and can't be the romanization described on the page on "Old Turkic script", because that doesn't include <ç>, <ï>, or <ğ>. (I'm guessing <ç> and <ğ> were added by analogy with modern Turkish. I'm not sure about <ï>.) DubleH (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit warring and 3RR violations over some recent edits made to this article. I've removed some references to Old Turkic-Mongolic cognates after reading the linked references, since they're presented as possible links and not a firm "X is a cognate of Y" as it was being presented in the article here. Also, please be careful of WP:PARITY and WP:TMI; we don't need to reference every possible theory linking Old Turkic to surrounding languages, and when we do reference them we should try to be as careful as possible not to overstate the wording being used in the original sources. I think everyone working on this article wants to see it turn out to be as good as it can, but we just need to take a bit more care. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer if the title was changed to Old Siberian Turkic or East Old Turkic, and not Old Turkic, with Old Turkic serving as a redirect or a separate page. There is a common misconception among turkic forums that OST is the ancestor of all modern Turkic languages, which simply is not true, and that misconception has seemed to cause confusion among the many editors of this page on what Old Turkic actually is. Upon reading the article, it feels like it is conflicted on whether to specifically describe East Old Turkic in general, or refer to Old Turkic languages in general, which are completely different worlds. Numerous times, West Old Turkic is mentioned but there seems to be no real explanation of what it is, aside from my recent edit that it is reconstructed through Hungarian loanwords. It also feels as if people are purposefully trying to misconstrue the reader into believing it is the ancestor of Common Turkic languages, as prior to my edit, the fact that it is a Siberian turkic languages was not mentioned until around 3/4th of the introduction, while the fact that it is the earliest attested common turkic language was stated in the second sentence. This level of confusion and inclarity really needs to be addressed, and I propose that the page be retitled to something with more clarity.2601:47:0:FBF0:C86B:43D1:AF1B:CA8 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) May 12, 2024