This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kyrgyzstan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kyrgyzstan-related topics 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.KyrgyzstanWikipedia:WikiProject KyrgyzstanTemplate:WikiProject KyrgyzstanKyrgyzstan articles
Eastern Turki (as Spoken in Turkestan): Grammar, Turki-English Vocabulary, English-Turki Vocabulary, with English Phonetic Pronunciation FrReport of a Mission to Yarkund in 1873, Under Command of Sir T. D. Forsyth ... By Sir Thomas Douglas Forsythnt Cover Harold Whitaker
I reverted the changes by 129.16.117.113, who had earlier:
Deleted the romanization of the native name and changed it to Cyrillic, when the Cyrillic already appeared right next to the romanization (i.e. Кыргыз тили (Кыргыз тили)) instead of (Кыргыз тили (Kirgiz tili))
Changed number of speakers from 3 to 7 million without citation
Changed "Kirghiz" to "KIRGIZ" (in all caps) for no obvious reason
Changed interlanguage link Киргизский язык (Russian) to non-existent
Changed interlanguage link Кыргыз Тили (Kyrgyz) to Кыргызча, which is just a redirect to Кыргыз Тили in the first place
Also, User:Amgine, I reverted your change of the native name. Now it's back to Кыргыз тили --- I freely admit my Kyrgyz is not good enough to make an independent judgment on this, but IMHO it's best to go with what the Kyrgyz Wiki itself calls the Kyrgyz language, namely Кыргыз тили. cab01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that Kyrgyz is most closely related to Kazakh is debateable. It seems that the similarties between the two are artificial and have more to do with language contact than any genetic relationship. Kyrgyz seems most closely related to Altay & Kazakh to Karakalpak. Straughn04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is most certainly the case—Kyrgyz and Altay share innovation that other Turkic languages lack, and Kazakh, Karakaklpak, and Nogay share innovation that e.g. Kyrgyz and Altay lack. Does something need to be changed? —Firespeaker (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first usage of Wikipedia discussion. First of all, any speaker of Kazakh or (not and) Kyrgyz will 100% agree that Kazakh and Kyrgyz are mostly related to each other (on top of that Kyrgyz and Kazakh have lived together for quite bit of time period in history). When language is concerned one should not try to come up with "genetic relationship" between nations in order to admit the fact, otherwise you would be declining truth. Altay is more related to Tatar same with Nogay. Karakalpak, yes it is similar but the not to the extent as Kyrgyz to Kazakh.
PS, it is funny how non-Kazakh or non-Kyrgyz speakers "decide" on which language is most closest to that of, but the more fun is that those "determiners" have to find some 'genetic bonds' in order to be convinced, why? "because they are SCIENCE people, and they better be COOL than TRUE" by saying things like Nogay and Altay are closest to Kazakh and Kyrgyz (respectively). Nogay and Altay are also very negligibly spoken languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.161.55 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the concept of genetic relationship between languages. This has nothing to do with people and DNA, but rather the branching of the language itself. How about you read the article Genetic relationship (linguistics) which is helpfully linked already. And I have no idea why it is "funny" that non-Kazakhs do linguistic research on Kazakh language. cab (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Genetic relationships between languages have nothing to do with genetic relationships between people. In linguistics, the word, "genetic", is used simply because the way in which languages are related to each other works in a broadly similar fashion to the way in which human groups are biologically related to each other. It's an analogy. In a similar way, we can talk about computer technology having "evolved" without intending to imply anything about biological evolution. 66.253.161.55 - three times in the last month you've deleted correct information. Whether you want to believe it or not, Kyrgyz is most closely related to Altay, not Kazakh. -- Hux (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CaliforniaAliBaba, and Hux: thanks for clarifying the concept. First I really thought that 'genetic relationship' was referring to nations which confused me and made me make that first 'bold' comment and sorry if I crossed the line in trying to explain my reasoning by humiliating some people (I was not aware of such concept as relationship among languages at all so I thought your reasoning behind Altay being closer to Kyrgyz was based on DNA or ... again, sorry). As far as me deleting (or attempting to correct) the information - yes, my bad. I thought that for some reason my edits were not being performed in Wikipedia and tried 3 (may be more) times to edit that.
Being a native Kazakh speaker, I am really glad that people like you are interested in my language (and please, ignore my first comment :)) PS, I am surprised how Altay can be closer to Kyrgyz than Kazakh since Kazakhs can understand 90-95% or more of Kyrgyz (and I believe so do the Kyrgyzs about Kazakh). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.161.55 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on prehistoric roots really doesn't belong here in its current form. Best would probably be a summary of the halpotype stuff ("the Kyrgyz genetically show quite a high relative concentration of the R1a1 halpotype (63%), which has been linked to proto-IE speakers. This is curious, since Kyrgyz is a Turkic language." etc). The current stuff is rambly and much of it is unnecessary. I'm going to propose a merger, to take some of the material out of this section and put it in the Halpogroup article. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest it's a bit unclear to me what those few paragraphs imply... is it that the Kyrgyz do not descend from the Samoyed/Yeniseyan tribes rather from the 'autochthonous Siberian population' instead? If yes, then what's the said autochthonous Siberian population?! Of course it's true that you can't make assumptions about a language based on genes. Peoples had less problem abandoning their language for another in the past.
Added to that, to be honest I'm not really seeing how a rambling section about the supposed genetic history of the Kyrgyz should even be in an article about the Kyrgyz language. Wouldn't it be more at home in the Kyrgyz article? -- Hux (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current Arabic script for Kyrgyz tili is incorrect (قىرعىز ٴتىلى).
There is no need for an apostrophe; the character [غ] should be used for [ɣ],instead of [ع].
I can't remember if [ɨ] is represented with the character high-hamza yeh [ٸ], or if it follows the Uyghur convention of using the dotless-yeh (alef maqsura) [ى]:
This was brought up above (see subsection: "Kazakh & Kyrgyz related") and not exactly resolved, but the opening section makes an unsourced claim that Kyrgyz is most closely related to the Altai language. The above discussion seems to indicate that there's a confusion between genetic relations of people and languages, and as most sources seem to group it with Kazakh (though not always under the name "Kypchak," Ethnologue calls them Aralo-Caspian), I'm going to remove it. But if there is an Altai substratum hypothesis for Kyrgyz, please do talk about it in the article, and provide sources. Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
when this Iranian sickness in wikipedia going to end?
these Persian internet trunks are corrupting all wikipedia articles with their nounsenses about Iranian people, Iran is a recently invented name and its a Hebrew word, but they try to stirck themselves on Turkic white people, its a shame, none will ever accept Persians as white ethnics while they try to attach themselves to Turkic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.110.55 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is clear that you don't know the lexicology of persian language. Iran means Aryan "the lands of Aryan". Persian articles are not nonsense to your information but you are on lands of Persian and its values influenced your identity that is why whatever comes up with, it will take you to the origins of Persia. You should first accept your origins and then talk about what is nonsense, it is obvious that you do not accept your origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryanMK (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consonant phonemes /k/, /g/, and /ŋ/ have uvular realisations ([q], [ɢ], and [ɴ] respectively) in back vowel contexts (before back vowels). In front-vowel environments, /g/ is fricativised between continuants (to [ɣ]), and in back vowel environments both /k/ and /g/ fricativise (to [χ] and [ʁ] respectively).
This isn't exactly clear what happens to /k/ and /g/: they're [q] and [ɢ] «in back vowel contexts (before back vowels)» and «in back vowel environments both /k/ and /g/ fricativise (to [χ] and [ʁ] respectively)»?!? Fnugh (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples with /χ/ in Kyrgyz words (not loans), we definitely have /q/, e.g. koltuk is pronounced as qoltuq. I'm not sure about these three, they all sound the same to me /ʁ/, /ɢ/ and /ɣ/. We also pronounce the word Ooba differently, b in the middle becomes somewhat like /w/. /k/ is also pronounced as /g/ at the beginning of words, e.g. kökürök is pronounced as gökürök. --158.181.135.135 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Kyrgyz 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.
No mention on how plurals are formed in Kyrgyz which would seem significant. I had to read it on the French Wikipedia. Maybe I'll translate that section. Bastique☎ call me!02:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
