Talk:Names of Istanbul

message: Constantinoble is used in Catalan, Occitan and Middle French. 
I wonder if the noble part is folk etymology (as the sala  in Jorsala) or a normal evolution.
--Error (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantinoble 

message: There's a point that I haven't ever seen mentioned yet with regard to the etymology of İstanbul: What's the pronunciation of Konstantinoúpoli(s) in Northern Greek dialects, which famously drop high vowels, and some of which then raise the mid-vowels? Because you'd expect, of course, something like Konstandnpol or even Kunstandnpul, and perhaps the /p/ is then voiced after nasal too, whence you get Kunstandnbul; maybe a simplification of the cluster ndnb, giving Kunstanbul or Kunstambul; more speculatively, like in Kostas, the disappearance of the first /n/, yielding Kustanbul or Kustambul; and suddenly, you're a lot closer to İstanbul and Stambul than you were initially, without having to postulate so many arbitrarily dropped syllables. Just saying. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is of course all WP:OR, but Constantinople itself apparently didn't belong to the center of the high-vowel-dropping dialect zone. According to our article on Varieties of Modern Greek, modern Constantinopolitan Greek only had dropping of word-final /i/ and /u/, so the most you'd get would probably be /konstandi'nupoli/ > /konstandi'nupol/. In any case, the "oú" of Konstantinoúpoli(s) is stressed, so it wouldn't be a candidate for dropping in the core Northern dialects either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusingly, this article doesn't appear to address the "dropped syllables from Constantinople" theory at all, but just states the "to the city" one as fact.  Unlike the Istanbul article, which discusses both, then refers to this as the "main" article on the topic!  Even if scholarly consensus is against the former and in favour of the latter, in should be mentioned in that context at least.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you can cite a serious linguistic source proposing such a "dropped syllables from Constantinople" theory, then we can talk. Without that, there's nothing to discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, clearly there's something to discuss, given the glaring inconsistency between the two articles.  The other gives this source:  Istanbul#CITEREFRoom2006.  If you feel that's not a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia's standards, then we have the converse difficulty.  I note there's also a journal article called "The etymology of İstan­bul: making optimal use of the evidence" by Marek Stachowski, Robert Woodhouse, which states this in its abstract:  "The discussion of the origin of the Turkish city name İstanbul that began well over a century ago has divided scholars into two groups: those who accept the Greek phrase εἰς τὴν πόλιν (or similar) as the source of the name, vs. those who try to trace it back directly to Greek Κωνσταντινούπολις ~ Κωνσταντινόπολις. The writings of both parties are encumbered by poor Turcology, inaccurate attention to early records and an overly narrow view of medieval Anatolian Greek phonetics. More scrupulous examination of all three types of evidence has revealed a more interesting picture than has previously been suggested."  That alone seems to me to imply the summary here is incomplete and misleading.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the "Room" reference is a poor-quality source. The Stachowski & Woodhouse article is good though, and I wasn't aware of it; thanks for digging that out. Full text is here. Stachowski & Woodhouse leave absolutely no doubt that the "is tin polin" etymology is essentially correct; they merely add a few extra details to it. They do cite two modern authors (Rahn 2002 and Hansack 2008 ) who apparently attempted to reassert an alternative derivation from Constantinople, and who they criticize harshly. Both Hansack's paper and Stachowski & Woodhouse's reply to it make it clear that Hansack's position is an isolated opinion in the field and that the "is tin polin" etymology is the widely accepted standard view. BTW, Hansack's paper is just a two-page quip, and Rahn's contribution is a single footnote in an otherwise unrelated work; neither of the two are experts in Greek or Turkish linguistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Istanbul, redux 

message: The section on Old Norse was not great. I removed this section:
"...later Miklagard and Micklegarth."
Both of these are just different ways of transcribing the word Mikligarðr. Both "-d" and "-th" represent the letter "ð".
The "Miklagard" spelling used a source that does not actually claim it is a later spelling of Old Norse. It is more likely the modern Norwegian spelling.
The "Micklegarth" spelling is used in an article that claims it comes from "Jarvardar Saga". I did not recognize that saga but luckily Google managed to guess that it was actually "Játvarðar saga" (The Saga of [king] Edward [the Confessor]). I checked the best transcription of the saga I could find. There the city is usually called Miklagarðe (eleven times) and Miclagarðe (just once).
I don't really think that the article needs to list the different spellings of Old Norse/Icelandic. There was not standardized spelling and place-names were fluid. Mikligarðr is the standard modern representation of this word in Old Norse.
It might be helpful to understand how the word Mikligarðr changes with inflection (note that there were variants of this):
Mikligarðr
Miklagarð
Miklagarði
Miklagarðs
Óli Gneisti (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Norse - Mikligarðr 

message: There is a picture of an Ottoman coin with this caption: ""Islambol" on an Ottoman coin belonging to Selim III, which was struck in his fifth regnal year (c. 1893/94)."   I don't know how to edit a caption.  Clearly the date on the coin using Arabic numbers is 1203.  This Hijra (H) year corresponds to roughly October 1788 until September 1789 in the Christian calendar (CE).  Selim III was Sultan 1789 until he was assassinated in 1807 by the Kizlar Agha (Chief Black Eunuch) (you can't make this stuff up).  I suggest the caption be amended to: ""Islambol" on an Ottoman coin belonging to Selim III, dated 1203 H corresponding approximately to 1789 CE."  Cross Reference (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this; done. This was originally correct but then changed to the incorrect date here . Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   this was my edit. Thanks for correction. However it is still 5th regnal year. You can see the Arabic numeral ٥. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for responding. But 5th regnal year of Selim III, 1793–1794, would be around 1208 H, wouldn't it? How does that fit in with the year number on the coin, which clearly looks like 1203? That would correspond to 1788/1789, as Cross Reference said above. In the source website http://www.osmanischesmuseumeuropa.de/, these figures re described as "1203/5", which seems to imply the "5" is a month number, not a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I own a bunch of these coins. 5 definitely means the year, not month. Ottoman sultans issued every year the same coin with different year corresponding their regnal year. 1203/5 means 1203 (accession) /5 means (year issued). see example below. It clearly has the first letter s of the word سنة (sanah / year) under the number 5. Some don't have that, only the year.  1893 was a typo of mine. Beshogur (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, ok, if the logic is "year of accession" + X, that seems to make sense. Thanks for clarifying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Beshogur (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a better example. Beshogur (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman coin