Talk:Uzbek language

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

'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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Uzbek Scouting

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

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

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

Braille

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