|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Central Asia||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Added the Uniform Turkic Alphabet, used between 1927 and 1940. Information from the Turkmen and Russian Wikipedias. Not sure if I'm about to post the short-lived alphabets from the early 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Several questions about the Turkmen Latin script:
- Does anyone know how well the introduction of Turkmen Latin script goes on there? Is it taught in schools, or is there still a mix of Cyrillic and Latin? Are there any adult people who use it?
- In what language are newspapers printed? Street signs? Government documents and passports?
- Who designed it? It seems very weird in comparison to other Turkic Latin scripts. Where Turkish and Azeri use dotless i, Turkmen uses y, like Polish, and where Turkish uses y it uses y-acute. If the purpose of Latinization was to bring the Turkmen culture closer to Turkish, then it missed the point entirely. It actually looks so stupid, that it makes me think that the Great Serdar Saparmurad Turkmenbashi designed it himself.
- What does the exiled Turkmen opposition think about the script? I see that some opposition websites use Cyrillic and some use Turkmenbashi's weird Latin, even though they hate Turkmenbashi. Are there any proposals to make yet another reform that will make Turkmen look like Turkish and Azeri?--Amir E. Aharoni 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- 1-2. At least at banknotes of Turkmen manats and official web-sites.
- 3. Seems produced by The Great Serdar Saparmyrat Turkmenbashy. It is not so weird. Proposed system is internally logical. Set of characters conform with Central Europe Codepage. When was introduced this alphabet (1992) Turkic codepage not exists. Probably correlation with Turkish or Modern Uniform Turkic Alphabet is better but and this alphabet is robust.
- 4. At 2008 is not. --AlefZet (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The link to the Turkmen language Wikipedia in the "in other languages" section on the side is written in the Arabic and Cyrillic alphabets. Why? The actual version is in the Latin alphabet if you click. Rmpfu89 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- This are some Turkmen language ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Iraq used to Arabic script.--AlefZet (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
z as [ð]
The article text states that the letter <z> is pronounced as [ð], but the table shows it as [z]. Which is correct? Vilĉjo 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. S (no Z) is [ð] in dialects, but standard Ashgabat pronunciation is [s]--AlefZet (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
ñ & ÿ / ň & ý
I left the following question in Talk:Turkmen language but nobody has answered yet. I leave the same questions here. In a dictionary about Turkic languages titled "Dictionary of the Turkic Languages", by Kurtuluş Öztopçu et al, ISBN 0-415-16047-2 , edited by Routledge, I have found the spellings "ñ" and "ÿ" instead "ň" and "ý". Are "ñ" and "ÿ" incorrect or obsolete spellings? Or are "ň" and "ý" the "easier computer options"? The book was first published in 1996 and reprinted in 1999 but the copy I have is from 2006 (I took it from Ilford Public Library and it says it was transferred to digital printing in 2006) which means it should/could have been corrected if the spelling in Turkmen were wrong or had become out of date. According to the book "Azerbaijani, Turkmen and Uzbek are given in both their official Cyrillic and Latin scripts" (page x) but not a single "ý" or "ň" can be seen in the many Turkmen entries of the book. In page ix it can be read "Responsibility for the content and editing of the individual languages was undertaken as follows: [...] Turkmen: Youssef Azemoun, Turkmen expert.". I would appreciate if anybody could tell me how official are the spellings ñ & ÿ versus ň & ý. Thanks --Piolinfax (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- ñ & ÿ are wrong. --AlefZet (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, AlefZet. I was starting to assume that too. At least in the internet they seem to be non-existent. I just find strange that the editors in Routledge have not fixed the error yet (or, at least, earlier) Piolinfax (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)