Talk:Codex Cumanicus

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatolian Turkish

Anatolian Turkish has absolutely no relevance in this article. It is a different language, and belongs to the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages. The difference is as big as between German and English. Besides that, the modern Anatolian language was developed in the 20th century due to Ataturk's language reform. Tājik (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you delete Anatolian Turkish translation, why didn't you delete Hungarian translation. Is it relevant?--Saltinbas (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is more relevant than the Turkish language, because it gives a historical comparison between two languages that existed in a near geographical proximity to each other. Anatolian Turkish has no affiliation with either of them. However, if you feel that it is unrelated, feel free to remove the text. The Codex Cumanicus was written in three different languages: Qipchaq, Latin, and Persian. Maybe we should quote some Latin and Persian phrases instead. Tājik (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some parts of Codex Cumanicus was written in Italian and some parts are written in German language with latin transcript. I have the original facsmile. And if you look at Anatolian Turkish translation, you can see that Kıpçak Turkish is very similar to Anatolian Turkish then Hungarian. I can understand the text in Codex Cumanicus as Anatolian Turkish speaker, but Hungarian speakers can not understand. What I do not understand is your attitude to Turkish Language. Maybe, you should read Jean-Paul Roux to overcome your negative impression about Turkish Language.--Saltinbas (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "negative impression". It is simply about the relevance. Similarities between languages - whether related or not - is not the issue in here. A native Persian-speaker will understand 90% of Ottoman Turkish, while a native Turkish-speaker may understand up to nothing of it. But this does not mean that we add a Persian translation to all Ottoman articles. Let me give you another example: the sentence "who is this?" in French, "Qui est-ce?", is almost identical to Persian "kī ast?" (in some dialects pronounced as "kī-ye?"). Persian and French are related Indo-European languages, but the selective quoting of this one sentence which is identical in both languages does not justify a French translation of all Persian texts or a Persian translation of all French texts.

The point is: Selective quoting is misleading. Qipchaq Turkic is a totally different language. It belongs to the Qipchaq branch and is distinct from the Oghuz language to which Anatolian Turkish belongs. Anatolian Turkish gained ground in Asia Minor and the Balkans only in the last 200 years and was boosted to become the dominant language of Anatolia only under Atatürk who reformed and propagated it. It has absolutely no relevance in this article. This is the English Wikipedia, and only English translations as well as relevant other languages (in this case Latin and Persian, since they are an integral part of the Codex Cumanicus) should be mentioned. The Turkish translation is only relevant in the Turkish Wikipedia. Tājik (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1). Different branches of Turkic languages are much more close to each other then e.g. branches of Romance of Iranian languages. Speakers of Oghuz, Kypchak and Karluk languages understand each other without serious difficulties.

2). Phrases written in Cuman should be illustrated with translations to one or several modern Turkic languages. Maybe the most relevant are direct decendants of Cuman - Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar and Kumyk languages. But Turkish is not bad, too, as it is the most spoken of the Turkic languages. Don Alessandro (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1) Being closer does not mean that they are close. I know many native Turkish-speakers, as well as native-Uzbek speakers, and they do not understand each other. They do not understand written texts in the other language. Of course, there are strong similarities within a branch (Turkish, Turkmen, and Azeri are virtually one language). But this still does not justify a Turkish translation in every article. Just a comparison: some dialects of Kurdish and Persian, though belonging to two different sub-branches (Northwestern vs. Southwestern) are mutually intelligible. But this, too, does not justify a Persian or Kurdish translation in every article. Tājik (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an idiot telling lies. I'm a native speaker of Kazakh from the Kypchak branch but i can understand Uzbek especially its written texts. Also i know Turkish and some German. The difference between Kazakh and Turkish is just like the difference between Norwegian and Swedish not like the difference between English and German. The difference between English and German is just like the difference between Yakut and Uzbek or between Turkish and Chuvash. I'm sure, if an Uzbek and a Turkish try to understand each other they can understand. But your Uzbek and Turkish friends are probably idiot like you. They listened each other's speech only and never tried to understand it with using their brains then tragicomically said "i don't understand". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.34.201 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Казахи не смогут понять турков, но своих среднеазиатов вполне 188.162.54.221 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow an enraged Anti-Turkist Tajik. Please shut up and leave this page to do a favour to the world. Kipchak and Anatolian Turkish and Hungarian nothing to do with Tajik. And look at that "clever" boy wow really omniscient boy? Really? My native language is Turkish and I can not allow an ignorant person to smear about my language. A Tajik can not know my language like his native language but yes a Kirgiz or a Kazakh or an Uzbek or a Turkmen or a Tatar or an Azerbaijani can claim anything about Turkish language, you can not claim anything with any Turkic language, your native language nothing to do with. Go play another ground like Persian language etc., because your native language is in Persian group. You can not any claim about a foreign language like your native language. Go criticise your Persian language. Cumans were TURKic. Tajik nothing to do with it. Please learn some linguistic things or connections between language families, or in-family connections like etc. . Don't do anything with your excited brain, did you understand racist kid? Off it please. KARAus (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For students of Turkic Languages

It would be very useful to point out that the Cuman were Turkic and spoke a Turkic language. And all this should go in the introduction in line with WP policy.

Also, the section with translations would not be harmed by the inclusion of a translation in modern turkish, as it would be very helpful for those that are interested in Turkic languges.

In Anatolian Turkish, the text is:

Atamız ki göktesin. Alkışlı olsun senin adın, gelsin senin hanlığın, olsun senin dilemeğin– nice ki gökte, ve yerde. Gündeki ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver. Dahi, yazıklarımızdan (suçlarımızdan) bizi bağışla – nice biz boşatırız bize yaman(kötülük) edenlere. Dahi, şeytanın sınamağına bizi koyurma. Bütün yamandan(kötülükten) bizi kurtar. Amin!

this comapres very closely to the cuman/kipchak text:

Atamız kim köktesiñ. Alğışlı bolsun seniñ atıñ, kelsin seniñ xanlığıñ, bolsun seniñ tilemekiñ – neçik kim kökte, alay [da] yerde. Kündeki ötmegimizni bizge bugün bergil. Dağı yazuqlarımıznı bizge boşatqıl – neçik biz boşatırbiz bizge yaman etkenlerge. Dağı yekniñ sınamaqına bizni quurmağıl. Basa barça yamandan bizni qutxarğıl. Amen!

It is an entire paragraph. It makes it clear that the languages are close. Finally, I have added a context tag to the page at the top. WillMall (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Codex cumanicus, Bibliothecae ad templum divi Marci Venetiarum primum ex integro editit prolegomenis notis et compluribus glossariis instruxit comes Géza Kuun (1880)

https://archive.org/details/codexcumanicusbi00kuunuoft

Rajmaan (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Codex Cumanicus. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sperlling used

At 14:37, 11 April 2006‎ User:Don Alessandro seems to have changed the spelling of the Cuman language quotations from manuscript spelling to modern Ataturk Turkish spelling. Should that change be reverted? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Version I have changed was not an original spelling from manuscript, but a kind of a very strange transliteration (close to modern Turkish alphabet but without diacritics). We'd better let the current spelling be as it is and add an original spelling from manuscript if someone can find it. Don Alessandro (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation notice

Hi, I'm no expert on the topic but the word "Kökçä ulahım" should translate as "my greenish kid" instead of "my bluish kid". "Kök" or "Gök" in Anatolian Turkish is related to green (besides blue in some other contexts), and better applies to the context in the mentioned sentence; because melon can not be blue. 88.230.105.98 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]