Talk:Baburnama

Turkish literature

I don't see why this shouldn't be in the Turkish literature category - it is written in a Turkic language, after all. -- Danny Yee 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why this article is controversial. "Turkish" is a language group as well as a nationality. But maybe we should have a category Central Asian literature? -- Danny Yee 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, "Turkish" is a reference to either modern Turkey or the modern Turkish language which belongs to the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages. The Baburnama is written in the Chagatai language, with some parts being Persian. The Chagatai language belongs to the Qarluq branch of Turkic languages, and it has nothing to do with Turkey or the Turkish language.

Claiming that "Babur contributed to Turkish literature" is like saying that "Shakespeare contributed to Austrian/German literature".

The same way there is a difference between "German literature", "German language", and "Germanic languages", there is also a difference between "Turkic languages", "Turkish language", and "Turkish literature".

Tājik 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should create Central Asian literature. I haven't read anything else that would go into that category. The Secret History of the Mongols at least, but there must be lots more. -- Danny Yee 04:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Section deleted

I have deleted the section about Anatolian Turkish, because it is totally off-topic. First of all, Chagatay had a different writing system and pronunciation, much different from Anatolian Turkish (while Turkish maintains a strict vowel harmony, Chagatay - as well as Uzbek - lacks such a vowel harmony due to the immense influence of Persian and Arabic). As such, writing Chagatay with modified Turkish letters is misleading. Secodnly, the written text had nothing to do with the article. And thirdly, the Baburnama has absolutely no affiliation with Anatolia, Turkey, or the Turkish language. Tājik (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Baburnama is written Chagatai Turkish and it is obviously related with Turkish Language. I do not mean it is only related with Anatolian Turkish, but also related with Uzbek Turkish, Azeri Turkish, Gagauz Turkish and so forth. In wikipedia you can find the meaning of Chagatai: The Chagatai language (جغتای - Jaĝatāy; Uyghur: چاغاتاي Chaghatay; Uzbek: ﭼﯩﻐﻪتاي Chig'atoy) is an extinct Turkic language which was once widely spoken in Central Asia, and remained the shared literary language there until the early twentieth century.

Please remember that Turkish Language does not only belong to Anatolian Turks but also Kazaks, Ozbeks, Uygurs, Azeri, Gagauz and Tatars whose languages are the remains of Old Turkic.--Saltinbas (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This still has nothing to do with this article. The Baburnama was written in Chagatai language, not in Turkish. Both languages derive from Old Turkic, but are still different languages that - in this case - have nothing to do with each other. Claiming the Baburnama for Turkey and the Turkish language, is like claiming Shakespeare and Goethe for Persian, Hindustani, and Spanish, for all these languages derive - like English and German - from the same Proto-Indo-European language. Tājik (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted Anatolian Turkish translation. But latin transcripted original part of text and English translation should remain.--Saltinbas (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The section should be removed. First of all, because it is unsourced. Secondly, because it is selective quoting with no improvement in the article. Thirdly, because the Turkish script is misleading and does not represent the actual and original pronunciation of the Chagatai language which - unlike Anatolian Turkish - lacks any vowel harmony. Tājik (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note the Chagatay printed here is not Chagatay but has been modified. For example: " hattlarınnı ". The first four words are "hatt" but in Chagatay it is "khat" taken from Arabic خط. So it seems to be incorrect and selective coding. It would not be bad to have sections of the actual babur nama or interesting passages from it, but only if correct script and correct phonetics and correct writing is used. This simple example I just gave shows this is not the case. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way checked the Uzbek wikipedia and it has more correct versions of his works. Here is an example (although again it should not be written in Latin):

Xati binafsha, xadi lola, zulfi rayhondur, Bahori husnda yuzi ajab gulistondur.

Engi, mengi oyu dagʻi yuzi, soʻzi gulu mul, Qadi ravonu tani jonu erni marjondur.

Qoshida chin, koʻzida kiynu angabin labida, Soʻzida zahru lekin tilida darmondur.

Qoshinggʻa koʻp bora olmon, netay oraliqda, Yoshim tishing duridin ayru bahri ummondur.

Oʻtumni tez etasen har tarafgʻa sekritib ot, Samandi noz inonini bir beri yondur.

Ne nav' vasf qilay suvrating latofatini Ki, husnunga sening, ey ruh, aql hayrondur.

Jafovu javr agar qilsa, Boburo, netayin, Ne ixtiyor manga, harne qilsa sultondur.

Most of the words are Persian or Arabic words that were Persianized and enter Chagatay and this would not be understandble for the average Anatolian Turkish speaker today. Here is a sample of Persian words: Binafsha,Lala, Bahar, Gulistan, Gul, Mul, Mang, Ravan, Tan, Jon, Chin, Angabin, So'zi(saaz),Lab, Darman, Ghashang, durd, Samand, har, ne, agar,noz, neh, Zahr, and others.. the Arabic words are (and these are Persianized Arabic words and many of them don't have the same meaning) are: Ikhtiyar, sultan, hayran, ummon, marjan, Bahri, Ajab, Husn, lekin,Zulf, Xad, Xat, Rayhan, taraf, aql, ruh, jafa, and more. Or take the first line: "Xati binafsha, xadi lola, zulfi rayhondur" only the "dur" is turkish.

Note I just took a ghazal from the Uzbek version, but I am saying is that selective quoting should not be done. Also the quote brought by the user seems to have been altered "hat" instead of "xat". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"sentence structure, morphology" I removed this part, because it doesn't make a sense, it sounds like Chagatai language was distorted form of Persian language. and please, contributors, instead of highlighting his cultural background, provide more information about memoir itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.207.104 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)