Talk:Ili Turki language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Endangered languages  
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles related to endangered languages. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I might notice that all traits listed common with Uzbek/Qarluq are retentions, while the traits listed common with Kipchak are innovations. This suggests a rather different conclusion to me: Ili Turki is a Kipchak language, perhaps one that split very early from the rest of Kipchak so that it retained the traits which it now has in common with Qarluq; contact with Qarluq may have reinforced the retention of those traits such as geminates. (Alternatively, it could have acquired the Kipchak traits via contact, but that would have to be relatively recent contact with Kazakh – which is indeed spoken in the region, the Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, in modern times – because the Eastern Kipchak language was spoken in northern Kazakhstan originally.) However, it would be important to know which other traits relative to typical Qarluq and Kipchak traits Ili Turki exhibits. Perhaps the present sample is just highly unfortunate and misleading. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)