Chapultepec

I have undone this edit. Wiktionary pages should only have interwiki links to entries with exactly the same spelling. Unlike Wikipedia, links are not made according to meaning or subject, but by spelling alone. The Turkish entry for kalpak should only be linked from our entry for kalpak, and not from calpac or calpack. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey, let's take it for caracal. With this point of view the Turkish equivalent in tr.wiktionary.org should be the same word, namely caracal. Am I right? If so, I should go on like that. Regards. --Chapultepec 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If there is a turkish word caracal, then yes. If there is no such word in Turkish, then tr.wiktionary.org would need an entry for the English, Dutch, or Italian word caracal. It might be easier to explain with a situation where the Turkish and English are clearly different. Take the en.wiktionary.org entry for parrot. If tr.wiktionary.org has tr:parrot, then those two entries will be linked by interwiki. The tr.wiktionary.org entry for tr:papağan would not be linked from parrot. However, en.wiktionary.org has an entry for papağan, and it is linked to tr:papağan, and that tr.wiktionary.org entry is linked back to papağan here. Only identical spellings are linked by interwiki, never anything else. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Many of us (well, maybe just me) think that the most important part of an entry is the definition. So "a type of cap" seems a bit minimal to me. Do you think you could expand your definitions a little e.g. how is it different from other caps?

By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary lists about 200 words that have Turkish etymology. Would you like me to generate a list of them for you? (It would take me a little while) SemperBlotto 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, "Links" is not one of our standard headers. We also prefer "See also" when external links are called for, but we generally discourage external links that do not point to other Wikimedia projects. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see you were concerned about References. "References" is a standard L3 header. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's only harder in terms of learning structure. Because our content is data-driven, we adhere to a strict formatting much more than Wikipedia does. This is in part because each entry has (potentially) exactly the same kind of information as every other entry. Standardizing formats for pages makes it much easier for the users. Wikipedia is much more flexible in terms of format because their articles each have different kinds of information. Once you learn the format basics here, everything else is easy.

The WT:ELE is out primary format document, and most standard section headers have an explanation page as well, although some of them are incomplete or a bit out of date. The page Wiktionary:About Latin has more up-to-date information for some aspects of formatting, but applies specifically to formatting Latin. I've also set up a few model pages, since seeing it done is often easier to understand than reading about it. The key model pages are (deprecated template usage) parrot, (deprecated template usage) listen, and (deprecated template usage) Central Europe. You can usually figure out how something is done by looking at one of these pages. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Russian language is written solely in Cyrillic script and if you are unable to reproduce it, please write "abc {{rfscript|Cyrillic}}" instead of "[[abc]]" , i. e. the word should have an etry in Cyrillic (to which the link should lead) and if it has not, it must be created in the Cyrillic script and not in Latin. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Bogorm 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The same applies to Persian and Sanskrit entries, no link for transliterations and add "{{rfscript|Arabic}}" and "{{rfscript|Devanagari}}" , respectively. Bogorm 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. Was qonaq an old spelling, or just a mistake? If the former, we should say something like "From Turkish (deprecated template usage) qonaq (now (deprecated template usage) konak)". Ƿidsiþ 22:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The word is spelled as konak. Q has never existed in Turkish alphabet at all. In old times, Turkish wasn't being written with latin alphabet so we cannot say "qonaq is an old spelling". Konak is good. Schlingel0017 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is there a page that I can get all the regional variations of "etyl" template? For instance, I would like to learn whether there is a template for Middle French or Old Provençal etc. I would appreciate your assistance thereon. Thanks. --Chapultepec 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The ISO templates are all categorized in Category:Language templates. If you look at a language's article on the English Wikipedia, the ISO code is usually given there, if it has one. We also have a page Wiktionary:Languages without ISO codes, where we are dealing with the issues of what to do when a language has not been assigned an ISO code by the people who do that. For some languages, we have alternative templates, such as {{LL.}} for "Later Latin". These templates can be found in Category:Etymology templates, and are usually based on the Webster's dictionary abbreviation for the language, or modeled on those abbreviations. --EncycloPetey 16:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You may find the above script useful for adding plural forms more quickly - you'd no longer have to type anything. Conrad.Irwin 02:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This edit makes the page simpler. --EncycloPetey 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm also going to ask Conrad (who posted to you above), to see if we can accelerate the {{tr-noun}}. When it's accelerated, the red links will be green (instead of red), and clicking with automatically set up all the page content. --EncycloPetey 16:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you look at this edit? I believe -ler indicates a definite plural in Turkish, doesn't it? --EncycloPetey 16:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

But my changes did improve the entry, yes? I just want to be sure it's correctly set up, since I am recommending the forms of kerpeten to Conrad as the models for setting up template acceleration. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the message you sent to me came through just fine. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan. I would have a question, do you have any objections for the Turkish listings, that is, appending the Turkish templates where applicable in the etymological sections of the related words? We can correspond here, thanks. --Chapultepec 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had any objections to the additions you have made to some entries. The only thing that I ask of you is to be consistent with all entries. --Dijan 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have been thinking about this and how to fix our problem. Would you agree with me to merge Ottoman Turkish with modern Turkish? I was thinking of keeping the "Turkish" language heading and simply treating the Arabic script as an alternative way of writing (the way that Serbian is treated on Wiktionary, with entries in Roman/Latin script and in Cyrillic script...and entry in each script also providing a link to the other). Of course, there would be a tag providing a "modern Turkish" spelling on Arabic script entries and an "Ottoman spelling" on Roman/Latin script entries. In translations and etymologies only the "Turkish" heading would be provided with the modern spelling. Do you think this would be a good idea, rather than treating them as two separate languages? --Dijan 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Turkish Wiktionary also provides the "old" (Ottoman) spelling. Take a look at kalp and pazar, although on theirs, the "old" spelling is not wikified. --Dijan 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting idea, could you detail a little bit how it is gonna be achieved? I think the tag will be Turkish, but there will be a section for Ottoman Turkish script too. --Chapultepec 06:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have read your suggestion more carefully and it seems viable. --Chapultepec 06:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe something like akşam and آخشام. What do you think? --Dijan 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For me, it's ok, seems a good solution. --Chapultepec 07:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. I guess I have a lot of work to do :D You may go ahead and remove any Ottoman Turkish references in the etymologies and replace them with modern Turkish ones. Therefore, the links to Ottoman spellings will be accessible only from modern Turkish entries, indicating that they are only historical. --Dijan 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will start working as well, thank you. --Chapultepec 07:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, do you think it would be better to create a separate category for Ottoman spellings so that they do not mix with the modern Latin/Roman script? Something like "Turkish language:Ottoman spellings", so that only the modern spellings with be posted into the "Turkish nouns", "Turkish adjectives", etc. categories. --Dijan 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It can also be suitable, if it is technically possible, I'm ok for that separate category too. --Chapultepec 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me express mine objections against listing of آخشام as Turkish, it is Ottoman Turkish - even though Chapultepec insists on their identity, if we hypothetically agree that آخشام can be treated as a full-scale, but obsolete Turkish, and the Latin script is only its modern orthography (on which I am not going to settle), then that would open the door to listing Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz languages in Arabic script (abolished 80 years ago), which I strongly advise against, because the vast majority of the literature in these three languages was written after 1920s in Cyrillic and even if that is not true for Turkish, this script is still abolished, which means prohibited, proscribed or whatever (all this if we maintain that آخشام were Turkish). In order to justify the entry, I see no other way than titling it as Ott. Tr. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can be right for Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz, but we shouldn't forget that Turkish literature has an Arabic script past as well, just before 1928. Dijan's suggestion seemed suitable for me. Let's see what Dijan thinks thereon. --Chapultepec 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If we proceed that way, we shall end up listing Mongolian in Clear script, modern Persian in Pahlavi and finally, modern Danish in runes... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point, but I do not think that Persian-Pahlavi is comparable to our case. Turkish has earlier periods as well, such as early Ottoman, Old Anatolian Turkish, Middle Turkic etc corresponding to what you have given as examples. So, let's wait for Dijan's comments as well. --Chapultepec 09:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand all of your concerns. I'm not sure how to go about this just yet. I am in complete favor of abolishing Arabic script use on Wiktionary in headwords in Turkish and resorting to only listing Modern Turkish spellings as headwords. For each entry, Arabic script should be provided as a historical spelling (this excludes modern neologisms and post-reform coined terms) and not as an entry (the way it's done on Turkish Wiktionary). --Dijan 10:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is quite suitable for me, and I am also ok for your initial suggestion. --Chapultepec 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

But Ott. Tr. has got its own language code - ota, which is not sooth for Kyrgyz or Kazakh in Arabic script... I am perplexed, but if there are already plenty of Ottoman Turkish words, Category:Ottoman Turkish derivations, probably we should alert all of Wiktionary community about such a profound change and hearken to what other, non-regional, contributors have to say, ok? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know, of course, there is the language code [ota], and there are discussions about it. [1][2] As for alerting, if it is necessary we should do it naturally. But again we had better take Dijan's opinion as well. --Chapultepec 11:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why we should not have Kazakh and Kyrgyz in Arabic. They were formerly used, so they do qualify for entries in Wiktionary. Even despite the duplication issue (which is also present in other languages), I think entries like سٵرسەنبٸ should be acceptable. -- Prince Kassad 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I must say that I'd rather keep ota as a language code for words which were borrowed during the Ottoman Turkish period, and tr for modern Turkish borrowings. Ottoman Turkisms in Balkanic languages are not from Anatolian dialects on which modern Turkish is based, but of Rumelian dialects that can be quite different. For example, (deprecated template usage) kapija is not from standard Turkish kapı but from dialectal kapi. I don't have problems with adding Arabic-script spelling as historical spelling (but clearly marked as such!) under ==Turkish== header tho, and also with writing Ottoman Turkish words in Latin script in etymologies. But IMHO it is necessary to point out that these were borrowed during the pre-reform Ottoman period, hence not "from Turkish" but always "from Ottoman Turkish". --Ivan Štambuk 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, how would we label the etymology in "kapija"? As far as I know kapi is not Ottoman Turkish either. قاپو (kapu) is, which can also be found in Persian as قاپو (qâpu) as a borrowing. --Dijan 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Before answering, I just wanna ask a question. Dijan, you said you were ok with adding Turkish templates, but were you really comfortable with adding both [tr] and [ota] templates in the etymologies? (meanwhile, I have to be away for at least 12 hours, so I will reply later on) --Chapultepec 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really don't care which template we use or even if we use both. --Dijan 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

[3]: in Western (Rumelian) Turkish dialects word-final ı, u and ü becomes i. So, kapija is borrowed from a form originally being kapi, not kapı or kapu. If kapi itself comes from earlier kapı or kapu (or perhaps all of them descend from different earlier etymon?) - that's another thing, but in order to avoid confusion we should always use Ottoman Turkish instead of Turkish to 1) designate proper historical period in which borrowing occurred 2) denote dialects distinct from Anatolian Turkish, with their own peculiarities, but also listing Anatolian Turkish (either in Arabic or Latin spelling) for comparison purposes. When Balkanic and non-BalkanicTurkish words match exactly, they could be listed as they are. --Ivan Štambuk 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I feel the necessity of defining these terms once again not to cause any confusion. Ottoman Turkish was the written variety used by the Ottoman elite for literary and administrative purposes only, but it was not the mainstream Turkish language. The mainstream language was ordinary Turkish used by the vast majority of the Ottoman Turkish population. Therefore, both ordinary Turkish and Ottoman Turkish co-existed in Ottoman era,[4] the latter being a side language, an artifical variety.

Here is another citation about our matter from a related book: [5]

"This divide in terms of one that was written but not spoken (Ottoman Turkish) and one that was spoken but not written (Istanbul dialect of Turkish.). The former was considered to be artificial, being a mix of Arabic, Persian and Turkish."

Modern Turkish is based on Istanbul dialect, not on Anatolian dialects. [6] And the fact that the word kapija passed through the dialectal kapi does not show that it was loaned from Ottoman Turkish. Vice versa, it shows that it was loaned from a Rumelian dialect of ordinary Turkish. The word kapi is a colloquial spelling of the Turkish kapı. [7]

So, I think that both I and Dijan made a mistake in search for a precise solution to end the problem (except for adding Ottoman spellings in Turkish entries and vice versa, which is indeed a good idea). The [ota] template should be separate, since it is a written variety and somewhat differentiated from mainstream Turkish. But, in my opinion, if we are not comfortable with adding both templates, we should use the Turkish template in the etymologies unless we have evidence that the related word was loaned from that written variety. --Chapultepec 08:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Words don't get loaned from written, but spoken language. kapi is not just an "alternative spelling" of kapı (even if it is in modern Turkish, it's completely irrelevant/orthoganal to this issue), it is a form of Western Rumelian Ottoman Turkish dialects (spoken!) with markedly different phonological features, some of which are listed in Viktor Friedman's paper I linked above. Modern Turkish cannot be listed as a source etymon of such words, but we can list them side-by-side. E.g. kapija < Rumelian {{etyl|ota|xx}} kapi: cf. Turkish xyz (in Arabic and/or Roman script). There is no problem with using {{etyl|ota|xx}} to induce categorisation, but linking to modern Turkish with {{term}}. We should emphasize that the word was borrowed during the Ottoman era, as there are no such new Turkisms in modern Balkanic languages, and not from the dialect used for modern standard Turkish (which could be the source of other, modern Turkisms). Such Turkisms borrowed during the Ottoman era are a closed category (the process is no longer operative, for obvious reasons ^_^), and as such are particularly interesting, and should be separated in their own category. --Ivan Štambuk 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, thank you for stating that words don't get loaned from written, but spoken language. That was what I was trying to explain as well. But, I think I couldn't explain sufficiently the difference between the two terms. The term "Ottoman Turkish" does not mean "the Turkish language spoken in the Ottoman era". Ottoman Turkish was the artificial written variety used by the Ottoman elites for administrative and literary purposes only. The language that was spoken in Ottoman period was ordinary Turkish. [8][9][10][11] Victor Friedman's paper that you have linked above also uses the term "West Rumelian Turkish", not "West Rumelian Ottoman Turkish".[12] So, the term "Turkish" does not only denote the language used in the 20th and 21st centuries, but also the language spoken in the Ottoman era.

I did not mean that kapi is an alternative spelling, I wrote that kapi is a colloquial spelling, or we can call it a colloquial form, whatever. But it is clear that it is a dialectal form of the Turkish kapı. Ethnologue also gives Rumelian, Razgrad, Danubian etc all as Turkish dialects. [13]

If we should emphasize that the word was borrowed during the Ottoman era, we can append the text (Ottoman era) beside the Turkish template in the etymologies. But I am not so sure that we do really need that. For instance, if a word was loaned to a language during the Safavid era, we do not give the etymology as "Safavid Persian", or similary, we do not give the etymology as "Mamluk Arabic" if a loaning happened during the Mamluk period. --Chapultepec 10:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm, Mamluk is not only time-, but place-related as well, as the Mamluk governance was based in Egypt. For the rest, I concur with Ivan and see no reason for using {{etyl|tr}} for words which came before the 20th/19th centuries. Somewhere, you already gave the example of Döner, which is a modern Turcism, and it would be glaringly inconsequent to æqualise this 20th-century loanword with 14th-century [[kula]]. Thus, I would indorse the further use of the {{etyl|ota}}, with Turkish listed either by means of cf. or backets, as heretofore. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I gave the terms Mamluk and Safavid only as examples, to express my thoughts about the usage of (Ottoman era). If Mamluk is not so appropriate, we can take Safavid as the example. Additionally, I stated that the term "Ottoman Turkish" is used for "an artificial construct, a written variety that was used by the Ottoman elites", and expressed that the spoken language used in the Ottoman period was ordinary Turkish. I also gave the related references above. Meanwhile, if the word kula is a 14th century loanword, then it falls within the early Ottoman period, and may be categorized under "Old Anatolian Turkish" --Chapultepec 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should this be deleted? --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can hang the {{delete}} template on the entry in such cases. Someone will notice and delete it very quickly. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Would you be willing to add the declension for tabanca using {{tr-decl-noun}}? Thanks, Razorflame 08:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply