This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chagatai language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Chagatai language is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Extinct?

What are the (presumably not extinct?) "discrete languages" mentioned, and are they distinct enough to create a language barrier to the people involved? -- WormRunner

A long time ago I asked for a source for the statement that the last speaker died in the 1990s, and none has been provided. I cannot believe that there were still native speakers of classical Chagatay in the twentieth century: might it be a reference to Teke Turkmen, also sometimes known as "Chagatay"? I am therefore going to delete this statement. If anyone finds a source, they can reinstate it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family

of course it's mongolian language. Tsagaadai(old version Chagatai) was a Mongolian. in hystory of Mongolia at that time wasnt anyword turk. all ethnic groups had their names , but not still turk. turk was 1 time after huns there & go way to west after fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.44.231 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who was what. This is about the language itself, and what matters there is what the language itself was like. This one was like Turkish, not Mongolian. 83.253.228.202 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic, not Turkish. Turkish is the turkic language spoken in Anatolia today.50.111.46.18 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai and Chagatay

What is the distinction (is there as distinction?) between Chagatai and Chagatay? I see that the latter appears to include the former in the Karluk branch of the Turkic language family according to the Infobox. TonySever (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai dictionaries and manuscript

Chagatai-French Dictionaries

Dictionnaire turk-oriental By Abel Jean B.M.M. Pavet de Courteille

https://archive.org/details/dictionnairetur00courgoog

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zt8GAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://archive.org/details/dictionnairetur01courgoog

http://books.google.com/books?id=d6UCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://archive.org/details/dictionnairetur02courgoog

http://books.google.com/books?id=wamJAF5x50UC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Name of uyghur language debate during the 19th century

See Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality and Uyghur_language#History for context over the naming debate. The Uyghur themselves did not call themselves nor their language as "Uyghur", but some foreign European and Russians applied the "Uyghur" name to them in the 19th century, and in the 20th century the Soviet Union managed to impose the name "Uyghur" and get the Uyghurs themselves to use the name for their language and ethnic group through their puppet Sheng Shicai. The modern Uyghur language is descended from Chagatai language.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q&f=false

A sketch of the Turki language by Robert Shaw

In the Turkish of Kashghar and Yarkand (which some European linguists have called Uighur, a name unknown to the inhabitants of those towns, who know their tongue simply as Turki), we can obtain a glimpse backwards at a state of the language when the noun (which in Western Turkish is almost inflected) was but a rude block, labelled if necessary by attaching other nouns, &c, to show its relation to the...

http://books.google.com/books?id=dw7gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vj1bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZT1bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false

Chagatai manuscript

https://archive.org/details/mirdjnmehpublip00navogoog

http://books.google.com/books?id=gr0MSY32LOwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://archive.org/details/SharahAlAqeedaAlKhalisaciatayTurkish

06:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct Arab/Persian/Osmanic spelling

All spelling as given by ref. [2] is correct - but I cannot see any reference for the spelling (and associated transcription) "جغتای / Jaghatay". Thus, I think:
Regarding all the examples given by ref. [2] together with today's Turkish form "Çağatay", the one correct Arab/Persian/Osmannic spelling is "چغتای".
DocumentReader (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

It seem like Chagatay is more used than Chagatai. Can anyone search it up on ngrams? Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai Language

Baburnama page 207, Moghuli (chagatai) language was spoken amongst Hazaras and nikudaris Elyas719 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit summary. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encoding of Yeh

In the table of Chagatai language#Orthography, Yeh is encoded in several different ways:

initial form: as U+FEF3 ARABIC LETTER YEH INITIAL FORM

medial form: as U+FEF4 ARABIC LETTER YEH MEDIAL FORM

final form: as U+FEF0 ARABIC LETTER ALEF MAKSURA FINAL FORM

isolated form: as U+FEEF ARABIC LETTER ALEF MAKSURA ISOLATED FORM

These encodings seem all to be problematic:

1. These characters from Unicode’s Arabic Presentation Forms-B U+FE70-FEFF should not be used. “Instead of these, letters from the Arabic block (U+0600..U+06FF) should be used for interchange.” (The Unicode® Standard 15.0 – Core Specification, p. 400)

2. In the Chagatai orthography, Yeh is used both to indicate consonantal /j/ (“y”) and the vowels /e/ and /i/. The use of both Arabic Alef maksura and Arabic Yeh for what should be one and the same abstract character is highly questionable.

I propose using U+06CC ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH exclusively: not only has this character the correct semantics (and I have no doubt the familiar Persian letter was ‘borrowed’ for Chagatai, not the much more remote Arabic forms), but it also exhibits the correct shaping behaviour, retaining the two horizontal dots in initial and medial positions, while omitting them in final and isolated positions.

The rendering of initial, medial and final forms can be triggered by adding Zero Width Joiner characters (U+200D) at the appropriate places. This should probably done for all other initial, medial and final forms in the table as well.

What do you all think about this? Pimrietbroek (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info not supported by citation

@Anzor.akaev: You made a lovely comment at my talk page [1] and reverted [2] my edit [3], which I made because the info was not supported by the cited page. This is what page says; "In Kazakhstan, as in Uzbekistan (Chapter 6, section 3) and other Turkic-speaking parts of Central Asia, Chagatai was the early literature." Now please tell me how that means: "Literary Chagatai is the predecessor of the modern Karluk branch of Turkic languages, which includes Uzbek and Uyghur." HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anzor.akaev: And now you reverted again [4], completely disregarding this talk page and the fact that the source does not support the information. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai is Karluk Branch of Turkic. Those people who spoke this was Uzbeks and Uyghurs, not Kazakhs. Kazakh is Kipchak branch of Turkic. Chagatai was the official language In Bukhara Emirate until 1920 after the soviets went in the language was renamed to Uzbek and Uyghur, it was split to 2 dialects. Why do you still vandalising on Uzbek history? Can i edit you history? Read the history about chagatai Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anzor.akaev, you need sources that say these things. It's not other editors' responsibility to add citations that support the changes you are making. You have to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/the-weird-case-of-the-uzbek-language/ Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a pretty good start. You could use that for now, provided someone doesn't have another source that disagrees with it. What we'd really like to see here is some academic sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the source now you can read the prof that its old Uzbek. Please stop edit there Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a "good start", Asilvering. It's a news magazine. If this is indeed true then it should be easy to find through WP:RS. Also, I've already added a template warning for their attacks in their talk page, which is full of warnings by other users than me. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unreliable source, and it does verify the content, so yes, it is a good start. As I said, what we'd really like to see here is some academic sources. If there are academic sources that disprove this source, certainly, we should remove it. Do you have any of those? -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a news article, not written by a scholar, so it is indeed unreliable. And no, that's not my responsibility. If they want it so badly, they can find actual WP:RS themself. I don't like that you think it's okay giving in to a compromise to a user whose majority of edits have been reverted, talk page full of warnings, and continued to attack me despite being reverted by another user [5] and warned by me for it [6]. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran, compromise is how we write the encyclopedia. It's central to our mission. I have already warned this editor about personal attacks and reminded them to assume good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”Uzbek and Uyghur, two modern languages descended from Chagatai, are the closest to it. Uzbeks regard Chagatai as the origin of their language and Chagatai literature as part of their heritage. In 1921 in Uzbekistan, then a part of the Soviet Union, Chagatai was initially intended to be the national and governmental language of the Uzbek SSR. However, when it became evident that the language was too archaic for that purpose, it was replaced by a new literary language based on a series of Uzbek dialects.” Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anzor.akaev, it's not very helpful to simply provide quotes without also giving the source of the quote. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't compromise by disregarding main tenets of our policies. Please re-review some of our policies, including WP:RS, WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. I'll be blunt, you're only making this more difficult. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it would be easier for you if I blocked newbies you disagreed with. I'm not going to do that. Instead, by engaging with this new editor, we've gotten them to come up with better sources for their claim, and the article has been improved. That's what we're trying to do here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, by engaging with this new editor, we've gotten them to come up with better sources for their claim, and the article has been improved

Except that's what I try the vast majority of time. Why do you think I made a talk page section? Again, you're not helping. And I don't like that you're throwing digs at me again, despite me being the one attacked and only one here actually trying to follow our policies. If you think I am bully, by all means, show the diffs and block me - if not, please leave me alone. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its from wiki Anzor.akaev (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did’nt change something, you removed the text. And now i added sources to it. Why do you still put your nose in Uzbek language? Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anzor.akaev, @HistoryofIran removed the text because the source didn't support it. Their edit was perfectly fine. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when they are working to improve the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source: https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/the-weird-case-of-the-uzbek-language/ Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use academic sources in this case, not news magazines... read WP:RS, including WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Added academic sources now, https://ealc.fas.harvard.edu/chaghatay Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/art/Chagatai-literature Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”As part of the preparation for the 1924 establishment of the Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan, Chagatai was officially renamed "Old Uzbek",which Edward A. Allworth argued "badly distorted the literary history of the region" and was used to give authors such as Ali-Shir Nava'i an Uzbek identity. It was also referred to as "Turki" or "Sart" in Russian colonial sources.In China, it is sometimes called "ancient Uyghur".” Anzor.akaev (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the passage (which is from here [7]) is about historical revisionism by Soviet Uzbekistan claiming Chagatai as an older variant of Uzbek? That is what it means by "distorted". HistoryofIran (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/art/Chagatai-literature Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In early 1900 there was no language called Uzbek or Uyghur. These languages was a single language called Chagatai. Me as half Uzbek can understand Uyghur til 95%. Soviets split up the eastern and western chagatai to Uzbek and Uyghur. Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://ealc.fas.harvard.edu/chaghatay Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard citation is... okay, just barely, so I guess we can use that. The Britannica citation (which is barely reliable, that's another story) does not support it. And your personal opinion/compentences are irrelevant, since follow WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok stop removing now, i added a academic source Anzor.akaev (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If something is not supported by a citation, I'll remove it, and that does not mean you get to attack me or decide what topic I should edit. And thus I've rewritten this passage so it matches the citation [8]. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]