Talk:Karluk languages

Languages High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Karluk languages 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neologism?

After doing a web search, I can't find any evidence of the widespread use of "Uyghuric languages" or "Uyghur Turkic languages" outside of Johanson and Wikipedia mirrors. I have tagged the article to alert anyone with access to more specialized or print sources, so that they could find a common name for this grouping of languages. Aside from "Southeastern Common Turkic", I have also found the name "Karluk (Turkic) languages" for the group, and either of these I suspect is more commonly used than "Uyghur Turkic languages", the current title of this article. Shrigley (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson's views are a minority viewpoint, most turkologists agree that salar is an oghuz turkic language while he claims it belongs in the same sub family as uyghuron page 83 of his book, which they do not agree with. He made up the name "uyghur turkic languages" by himself, its clearly not accepted by established scholars who say there is no connection between old uyghurs and modern uyghurs, rather modern uyghurs are descendants of the kara khanid qarluqs.Kuoofra (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. According to a source I found,[1] there are various schemes for the internal classification of Turkic. However, the only contenders for commonality were "Karluk" (Qarluq),[2][3][4][5][6][7] "(South)Eastern",[8][9][10][11] "Chagatai" (Chaghatay)[12][13][14] or some permutation thereof. Further, the only source I found which debated the classification of this group[15] made it a contest between "Karluk" and "Chagatai": again, "Uyghur Turkic" is out of the question. I agree that Karluk is the best choice because "Chagatai Turkic" could confuse readers with the Chagatai language, and we don't use the northern/northeastern scheme for Oghuz and Kipchak (Qipchak).

You're also right that we need to make a clear distinction on Wikipedia - as there is in careful sources - between "old/ancient Uighur" (language)" and "new/modern Uighur (language)", which are only related insofar as the latter stole the former's name in order to claim an older historical pedigree than is justified. I would also like to create an article sometime on "Ancient Uighurs", because a lot of our history articles prior to the XXth century link to our article on the modern "Uyghur people", which is of course erroneous. Shrigley (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your source[16], "The Uighur Group" is also used by Benzing 1959. My concern is that Wikipedia has generally been following Johanson's scheme IIRC. If the point is to remove POV, shouldn't we stick with the geographical names or a widely taught schema? If we start mixing schemes, taking a little Johanson here and a little Baskakov there, we're possibly doing original research. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Yugur language (yellow uyghur) is a direct descendant of the old uyghur language. Western yugur is spoken by the Yugur people.

It was russian orientalists during the russian empire's time who made the erroneus claim that the eastern turki speaking people of the tarim basin were descendants of the old uyghurs. The turkish historian Mehmet Fuat Köprülü debunked their claim that the chagatai language was descended from uyghur, he also debunks the claim that the inhabitants of kashgar were old uyghurs, rather, they were karluk kara khanids

i once saw a ninteenth century book which said that russian orientalists were the ones insisting that the inhabitants of the tarim were descendants of the old uyghurs, no other people claimed this, the people fo the tarim themselves never claimed they were uyghurs. It was the soviets who applied the name uyghur to the eastern turki peoples.Kuoofra (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kuoofra that the use of the term Uyghur for a descendant of Chagatai is confusing and does not reflect actual historical relationships. I was taught the following scheme by Claus Schoenig, a German Turkologist (it's easier to convey the picture using a tree, rather than prose):

Southeastern Turkic (Qarluqic) languages
- Khalaj (Arghu Turkic) language
- Chagatai languages
  - Uzbek language
  - Eastern Chagatai language – misleadingly called (Modern) Uyghur (see Uyghur people#Origin of modern nationality and Panethnicity#Uyghurs)
  - Ili Turki language – with (Southern?) Kipchak substratum
Orkhon language – misleadingly called Old Turkic
- Uyghur language
  - Modern Uyghur languages (influenced by Yenisei Turkic)
    - Yellow Uyghur language (also known as Western Yugur)
    - Fu-yü Girgis language (influenced by Yenisei Turkic, especially Khakas)

Perhaps this helps clarifying the issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of Wikipedia, my proposal would be to remain agnostic and stick to the uncontroversial groups:

That's 14 genetic units, not overwhelming, I think. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florian, is your idea to pull out langauges (like Kyrgyz, Chulym) from a group since there isn't a good consensus on it's linguistic genetic classification? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! In fact, that's standard practice for controversial groups. Just keep the uncontroversial nodes. For example, Siberian Turkic is a geography-based group, though whether it is also a genetic subgroup is unclear. I'm not aware of any common innovations that would allow to define a Siberian Turkic subgroup, and in fact, the various languages falling under the label exhibit some striking differences, for example in the continuation of intervocalic *-d-, which has been used as a primary (presumably very old) isogloss in the subclassification of Turkic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tree of turkic languages here by Frederik Coene (however, his academic credentials are from studying the caucasus rather than turcology.Rajmaan (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern uyghur

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3tAqIU0dPsC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

The modern Uyghur language is descended from the Karluk language of the Kara-Khanid Khanate, not the old Uyghur language of the Uyghur Khaganate). It is the Western Yugur language which is descended from the old Uyghur language.

The Modern Uyghur's ancestral language was also known as Xakani, it was the official language of the Kara Khanids and was documented by Mahmud Kashgari.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25202808

http://books.google.com/books?id=tI77bC989PoC&pg=PA86&dq=xakani&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TNrpUvj4MKevsATC7IGYDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=xakani&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=7f9gS40A_3IC&pg=PA19&dq=xakani&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TNrpUvj4MKevsATC7IGYDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=xakani&f=false

05:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)