Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Uzbek language

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UmidjonHope (article contribs).

Orthography

I have doubts about the orthography used in the sample text and the Uzbek quotations. (Babelfisch; June 29th, 2004)

I've taken Uzbek for two years now and have access to a number of materials and the orthography is correct. The previous Latin script from the 20's was quite distinct, from my understanding.

--Straughn 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Straughn[reply]

I'm a native speaker. The orthography used in the sample text is just fine. Nataev (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic v.s. Latin script

When exactly did Uzbek switch to Latin script? I'm sure Uzbekistani som banknotes up to 2001 (1000 som) are written in Cyrillic script

--Chochopk 06:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a decision to reintroduce Latin was taken in 1992, as stated in the article.Nataev (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds weird to say (as the article does just now), that "The latinization of Uzbek was carried out in the context of latinization of all Turkic languages, and would not have happened if other Turkic languages had not been Latinized." Up to the comma, this makes perfect sense, but surely what would or wouldn't have happened is a matter of speculation. It doesn't make sense as a historical assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.141.68.90 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100 percent. Will remove the part after the comma. Nataev (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbek Tili in Cyrillic

I think it's supposed to be Ўзбек тили instead of Ўзбек muпu. muпu is the way to write тили in handwriting, and therefore shouldn't be written in printed text.

AmitLev January 23rd, 2006

Most fonts give the handwriting style when the text is presented in italics (Ўзбек тили). Take a look at the source of this page. --Gareth Hughes 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, sorry. Although this can be misunderstood by people, like me, who read cyrillics but don't know the varieties in the fonts. --AmitLev January 23rd, 2006 16:14(GMT+2)
Ўзбек тили is correct. Nataev (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Ancient Uzbek Language'

"The ancient Uzbek language was spoken in Sogdiana, Bactria, and Chorasmia."

This is an anachronism and entirely incorrect. The language historically known as Uzbek was a Kipchak Turkic dialect spoken by the followers of Shaybani Khan, which only arrived in the region in the 16th century. Modern Uzbek is a Qarluq dialect (hence its proximity to Uyghur, and until the 19th century was variously known as 'Turki', 'Chagatai' or 'Sart'. In any case it is absurd to refer to this or any other Turkic language being spoken in ancient Sogdiana, Bactria and Chorasmia, if by ancient is meant the years before the Arab conquest. These regions were inhabited by people of Iranian origin, the ancestors of today's Tajiks, whilst Turks were only found to the north on the Dasht-e Kipchak, and in what is now Mongolia, Dzungaria and the Altai. The assertion that speakers of 'Uzbek' inhabited the settled regions to the south in ancient times is derived from flawed Soviet attempts to prove the ethnogenesis of the modern Uzbek people on the territory of modern Uzbekistan. Sikandarji 14:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sentence has been modified. Nataev (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with translation

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help, then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Uzbek. Thanks, --Soman 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 6 years but apparently nobody has translated the script into Uzbek yet. Are you still interested in having it translated? Nataev (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Altaic disputed ?

If there exists a dispute, what is?. I shall wait for a while for any discussion, if no reliable information or source (scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles) given there, i'll remove the Altaic "(disputed)" statement. Furthermore, if there exist such a dispute, this should be done in the "Altaic Languages" section. e104421 (signed on September 2, 2006, but not dated at the time -- Rschmertz)

It's been a while, so perhaps you've found your answer, but the summary of the controversy about the Altaic language theory is here. --Rschmertz 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encarta says that Uzbek belongs to the Eastern Turkic or Karluk language group of the Altaic language family. Nataev (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is very outdated. Altaic is a dead theory, now - even by the linguist that first proposed it. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic name

Hi, when I look at the page, the Cyrillic spelling of the name (in parentheses in the first sentence), looks like "Ўзбек muлu". But it looks OK (as "Ўзбек тили") in the page code. Does anyone have the same problem? Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just noticed the same question a few entries above and I learned the reason, sorry for the repetition. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghur script

I've Wikilinked "Uyghur script" in the bit about orthography, but that link is to a disabm. page, and it is not really clear which one is meant. The modified Arabic script mentioned in the disamb. page seems like the best match (it suggests it is still widely used in Xinjiang), but I didn't want to link directly to that one, as I wasn't sure, and the page for said script was a little more ambiguous about its use in China. Anyone know what is correct? --Rschmertz 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been solved. Nataev (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbek Scouting

Can someone render Tayor Bol (Be Prepared), the Scout Motto, into Uzbek script? Thanks! Chris 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tayyor boʻl/Tayyorlan (Latin) or Тайёр бўл/Тайёрлан (Cyrillic). Nataev (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

(1) there is conflation between phonemic // and phonetic [] representation for IPA values in the IPA table, e.g.:

Latin Cyrillic IPA
A a А а /a, æ/
I i И и /i, ɨ/
O o О о /ɒ , o/
U u У у /u, y/
V v В в /w/
O’ o’ Ў ў /ɤ̟/

should actually be:

Latin Cyrillic IPA
A a А а /a/ [a, æ]
I i И и /i/[i], /ɨ/ [ɨ]
O o О о /ɒ/ [ɒ]; /o/**
U u У у /u/ /y/ [ʉ]
V v В в /v/ [ʋ, v, w]
O’ o’ Ў ў /o/ /ö/[ɤ̟]


-- For <a>, there is no phonemic distinction between the two surface phones; they are environmentally conditioned. The phonemic distinction lies between <a> and <o>.

-- <o> is [o] only in Russian loans, not native/nativized lexical items. reference: http://www.oxuscom.com/orthography.htm : "3. The sound represented by "o" in Russian and most international words is closer to o' than any other Uzbek sound and is usually assimilated as such.This statement confirms that the original spelling is preserved."

-- <u> and <o'> have traditionally conflatingly represented two separate vowel phonemes each, as can be seen in some more conservative dialects of Uzbek as well as the rest of the neighboring Turkic languages. Due to Tajikification of the vowel system, the distinction has been lost in many spoken variants, but is still technically maintaining of the front-back harmony, e.g. <qo'l> /qol/ 'hand, arm' versus <ko'l> /köl/ 'lake'; <qut> /qut/ 'fortune' versus <kut> /kyt/ 'wait' (stem; imperative); <o't> /ot/ 'grass' /öt/ 'fire; gall-bladder; to pass'; <uch> /uʧ/ end, tip, point' vs. /yʧ/ 'three'.

-- <i> conflates two phonemes /i/ and /ɨ/: <kir> /kir/ 'dirt, grime' versus <qir> /qɨr/ 'plateau, highland'.

Pachooey (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But in most examples you give the consonants are different as well.

IPA values for some letters seem rather strange. As far as I know, U, V and O’ sound as follows:

Latin Cyrillic IPA
U u У у /u/
V v В в /v, w/
O’ o’ Ў ў /o/

What is the source for the given table? Don Alessandro 16:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "o" is pronounced /o/ only in Russian loanwords is completely WRONG. Nataev (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, because in Uzbek words "o" is pronounced /ɒ/. 213.230.101.35 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe, ʻokina/single opening quotation mark, and modifier letter apostrophe

Does anyone know if the writing system differentiates between ‹o’› as /ɤ̟/ and or /oʔ/ ? It seems to me that the current Latin orthography cannot distinguish between these two. 24.57.133.232 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the /ɤ̟/ is written with an left/opening apostrophe: o‘ while /oʔ/ is written with a right/closing apostrophe o’. Funny thing is, the pdf linked at the bottom of the wikipedia page as reference point 9 shows the apostrophes in the opposite directions. I get the feeling most typists don’t bother with the differentiation between the two apostrophes as their keyboard layouts likely accommodate only the straight quote. languagegeek (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a HUGE issue of the Latin script. When Uzbek is written using the Latin script, either the single opening quotation mark (‘) (U+2018) or the ʻokina (ʻ) (U+02BB) is used to write the letters Oʻ (Cyrillic Ў) and Gʻ (Cyrillic Ғ). It has not been officially specified which character should be used to form these letters. The modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) (tutuq belgisi) has other functions. It is used to mark the phonetic glottal stop when it is put immediately before a vowel in borrowed words, as in sanʼat (art). The modifier letter apostrophe is also used to mark a long vowel when placed immediately after a vowel, as in maʼno (meaning). I've written about these issues in the article, citing sources where I could. Please take a look. Nataev (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message for User:UzbekKhan

Dear User:UzbekKhan: I don't know how to write to you, so I will put my message in three places: on your newly created talk page, on my talk page (where you posted your comment), and on Talk:Uzbek language. I am not saying that Sogdian language is related to the Uzbek language. I am only saying that there is a link between the two that justifies the inclusion of Sogdian under See also in the article Uzbek language. Please check the article Sogdian and see the several mentions of Uzbekistan and Uzbek language there. Of course if, despite this explanation, you are convinced that Sogdian should be taken out from See also in Uzbek language, please go ahead and do it: I promise not to revert it again. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Sogdiana is listed in the see also section. It's better to have Sogdian Language I think. Nataev (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yaxshi Men sening fikringa qo'shilaman Va SHUNI AYTMOQCHI manki sen o'zing qayerliksan? 84.54.71.132 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupied East Turkestan by China"?

The infobox includes the phrase "occupied East Turkestan by China". Isn't this rather POV? Unless anyone has a good reason why it should be there, I'm changing it back to "China". Xinophiliac (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar change to wording in the text. Omitted word "occupied" but left "East Turkestan or Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region."--Mack2 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbek Script before Yana Imla

Uzbek was and - by private people - still is written in a form of the Arabic script that is not the Yana Imla system, but actually a very old system that was used for Chagatai as well. Should that not be mentioned? Einstein92 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source to support that claim? Nataev (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braille

If anyone can confirm Uzbek Braille, please let us know on that talk page. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uzbek 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21st century

What is the language of uzbek literature 112.211.131.18 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be read carefully and edited

by someone who knows the field and writes English fluently 142.163.195.92 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and repeated material

Yokubjon Juraev, I assume you're aware of the WP:3RR. I'll explain my edits once again below and hope other editors will revise the article accordingly:

  1. Verifiability: a) "the significant influence of Kazakh (a Kipchak Turkic language) makes Uzbek markedly distinct from Uyghur with regard to some grammatical aspects." You haven't provided any reliable sources to support your claim that Kazakh has significantly influenced Uzbek, nor is the claim discussed anywhere in the article. The lead section of an article should provide a summary of its most important contents. b) "Literary Uzbek shows a considerable number of Mongolian loanwords, for example in the names of animals, birds, household items and chemical elements, but nowhere as evident as in military terms." What is " a considerable number"? Can you provide a source to support this claim? Once again, this topic is not discussed in the main body of the article.
  2. Vagueness: "makes Uzbek markedly distinct from Uyghur with regard to some grammatical aspects". What are those aspects? Where in the article are they discussed?
  3. Repeated material: "Uzbek and Uyghur are sister languages and both constitute Karluk group or South-Eastern branch of Turkic." and "Uzbek belongs to the South-Eastern Turkic or Karluk branch of the Turkic language family." contain repeated information and thus can be combined. Nataev talk 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a three volume etymological dictionary of Uzbek. The first is dedicated to common Turkic words, the second to Arabic loan words, and the third to Persian loan words. I couldn't find any source to support the claim that Uzbek has a large number of Mongolian words. As a native speaker, I'm aware of only a dozen such words. Nataev talk 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my edit about Mongolian loanwords. Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60 words out of tens of thousands words. So, this info has no place in the intro. Now, find a reliable source to back up your claim the following claim or it will be deleted: "Nevertheless, the significant influence of Kazakh (a Kipchak Turkic language) makes Uzbek markedly distinct from Uyghur with regard to some grammatical aspects." This is another instance of WP:NOR. Nataev talk 19:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the false claim that Uzbek has been significantly influenced by Kazakh (as it cannot be verified anyway) and revised the rest of the sentence based on the single source cited in the entry. Nataev talk 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbeks are not Chagatai

Let's get this out of the way. Uzbeks are not Chagatai. Figures like Timur, Ali-Shir Nava'i and Babur are not Uzbek. Uzbekistan is a newly constructed Soviet concept. Some WP:RS:

  • "In Central Asia, the meaning of previously-existing group names was changed and given an ethnic content. Some groups were declared part of the Uzbek nation, and the boundaries of an entity called “Uzbekistan” (which had never existed before) were delimited (Carlisle 1991b, p.24). The implementation of the nationalities policy was similar in Tajikistan. Tajik national identity was recognized in the national delimitation of 1924. Before the Soviet Union there was no idea of national identity among the population of Tajikistan. During the time of national delimitation there was great confusion among the population of Tajikistan when people were asked to declare their nationality. In Khujand, for example, many could not say whether they were Uzbeks or Tajiks. Some Iranian speakers called themselves Uzbeks. Subsequently Soviet policies began to create a Tajik national consciousness (Harmstone 1970, pp.78–79). The same confusion existed in the newly created Uzbekistan as well; many could not tell whether they were Uzbeks, Tajiks, or Kazakhs" - page 1991, Power, Networks and Violent Conflict in Central Asia: A Comparison of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Routledge
  • "The national identities of both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were products of Soviet-era policies in both republics." - idem, page 20
  • "With the Russian conquest of Central Asia in the late 13th/19th century, the transnational, supra-ethnic language of Chaghatay gradually went out of use and was replaced by other Turkic languages that had been regional varieties but were increasingly seen as literary languages for emerging ethno-nationalities, such as Uzbek, Kazakh and Turkoman" [1] Encyclopaedia Islamica, Brill Publishers
  • "In 1938 the ideologists, to rid themselves of the term Chaghatay, prescribed Old Uzbek, though this attributive badly distorted the literary history of the region." - page 230, The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History, Edward A. Allworth, Hoover Institution Press, 1990
  • Here Uzbek and Chagatai are listed separately: "In Central Asia the Persian interplay with Chagatai, Uzbek, and Uyghur is just one example." - page 42, The Persianate World: Rethinking a Shared Sphere, Abbas Amanat, Brill Publishers
  • "With the advent of independence in 1991 Uzbekistan, like all the former Soviet republics, embarked on a reinvigorated campaign to construct its national identity. The entire historical and cultural legacy of Central Asia was claimed for the Uzbeks, such that Tamerlane (who had in fact been a member of a rival tribe that despised the Uzbeks of the time) was christened as the ‘Founder of the Uzbek nation’. His astronomer grandson, Ulugh Bek, was dubbed an ‘Uzbek’ scientist, and the poet Alisher Navoi (who spent his life in Herat) became the ‘Father of Uzbek literature’. Even Babur, the Timurid prince forced out of the region precisely by the Uzbeks during the early sixteenth century before going on to establish the Mughal Empire in India, was retroactively claimed as an ‘Uzbek’ hero." - page 179, Richard Foltz, 2023. A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • There's also this open-access Cambridge University-published source [2] which describes the historical revisionist attempts at claiming Ali-Shir Nava'i and Chagatai as "Uzbek".
  • "Ironically, given Navoi's distaste for the Uzbeks of his day, his legacy is being corralled for [a] strain of nationalism-building: the revaluation of the Uzbek language" - page 86, Charles Kurzman, 1999. “Uzbekistan: The Invention of Nationalism in an Invented Nation.” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 8 (1999),

HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uzbek_language