Talk:Fuyu Kyrgyz language

message: I've expanded this article a tiny bit using one of the only sources on this language; I'm trying to take care to emphasize that everything is "tentative" and not make anything sound too definitive.  Let me know if there seem to be any issues. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ spik ʌp! 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Fuyü Gïrgïs or Fuyu Kyrgyz? The title Fuyü Gïrgïs seems to be original research. What's its origin? ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 14:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent ref has Fuyu Kirghiz. "Kyrgyz" would be Kirghiz spelling, and this isn't Kirghiz. But the current spelling is attested in Coene (2009) The Caucasus: an introduction. But is this even a distinct language? It just seems to be Khakas, though the people are classified as Kirghiz by the govt. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know either. Is the name Fuyü Gïrgïs first used by Hu, Zhen-hua; Imart, Guy (1987)?––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 12:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Ethnologue just calls it "Khakas". Actually, they don't even grant it the status of a separate dialect. This might be something to bring up at WP:WikiProject Languages. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ehhh.. I didn't realized that there's a “China” section in the report of Khakas in Ethonologue, which is undoubtfully Fuyü Gïrgïs. So your moving seems to be correct. ––<Span xml:lang="zh-Hant-CN" lang="zh-Hant">虞海</Span> (Yú Hǎi) <Big>✍</Big> 13:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnologue is notoriously unreliable, so take their classification with a load of salt; what I once learned about this idiom from an actual Turkologist is strongly at variance with Ethnologue's opinion. Anyway, weird diacritics in titles are deprecated (and considering the former title of Squamish language, I can only concur; Fuyü Gïrgïs may look a little too Spinal Tap-esque for a layman such as Jimbo, who has explicitly voiced his discomfort with article titles that he can't enter using his keyboard), and Fuyu Kirghiz is the most neutral option available, which doesn't presuppose any particular classification. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

text:  Despite the government's classification, they are distinct from the Kyrgyz—they just have a cognate ethnonym.  The language is closest to Khakas, but I don't think anyone would call them dialects of the same language.  As for the spelling, "Kirghiz" is a spelling English got via Russian; I would not consider it neutral.  This name is probably best spelled Qyrgyz (or Kyrgyz) in English.  For the Fuyü language, I would think the best anglicisation would be Gyrgys, but I don't think anyone uses that spelling. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As long as we have no neutral, academic linguistic sources explicitly calling it a dialect of Khakas or anything else, there is no justification at all to use "dialect". Kwami: Why don't you simply move the article to either Fuyü Gïrgïs or Fuyu Girgis, both of which already redirect here? That is a neutral title, but also unambiguous. "Language" or "dialect" is not needed here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Kyrgyz, per normal English spelling. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title