Talk:Tatar language

message: The following was moved here from the article page: olivier 05:37, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
Tatar tele törki telder.
Ul Tatarstan Cömhüriäteneñ räsmi tele, häm dä Seber, China, Türkey, Ukraine häm Central Asia illärendä qullanıla.
Donya yözendä yaqınça 7 million tatarça söyläşüçe bar. İske Kiril älifbasınnan Latínğa qaytu 2011dä betärgä tieş.
----
Could somebody insert IPA or X-SAMPA for the pronunciation? Using English pronunciation as a reference brings up the problem of differing English dialects. -  — G↭a⇅a | Talk 18:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The official alphabet of Tatar language in The Republic of Tatarstan, so in the country of most Tatars is a Cyrillic script. Just this script is used in Tatar Wikipedia, also in most papers and books printed in Tatar. 
But not here in the article on Tatar language. In my opinion it has to be corrected. The script of Tatar words and characters in the article has to be converted from Jaꞑalif to Cyrillic.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.238.188 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue of alphabet 

message: I don't think the Ural-Altaic family should be mentioned in the leading section or in the taxobox. As far as I know, the Ural-Altaic theory is pretty much disproven now.--Jyril 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ural-Altaic family

message: 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 Tatar. Thanks, --Soman 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with translation 

message: The article contains a statement that Tatar is used as a language of communication between several groups including Chuvash. My understanding is that Chuvash is a West Turkic language while Tatar is in a branch of the East Turkic languages. While there is a lot of mutual intelligibility between East Turkic languages, this is not true of Chuvash and any East Turkic language. Also, the Mordvin and Udmurt languages are Finnic and therefore not mutually intelligible with Tatar.
What evidence is there that Tatar is used by these groups as a lingua franca?
:No evidence at all, of course, because obviously the lingua franca everywhere within the former SU is Russian. Duh... 64.198.215.3 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuvash 

message: Does anyone know anything about İQTElif?
Please see Talk:İQTElif and Talk:Tatar alphabet#İQTElif.
Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  İQTElif 

message: Here's another source about the number of Tatar speakers - http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ttr.htm (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights). It's written there that there were 7 million Tatar speakers in 1991. So I think that Ethnologue did make a mistake... Alæxis¿question? 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnologue 

message: Hi,
The article İQTElif looks like original research by User:Ultranet.
I think that as an article it should be deleted. However, it does seem to include some correct and sourced information about Tatar phonology, which may be useful in other articles. I can't verify it myself, because i don't know Tatar. Any help would be appreciated. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  İQTElif again 

message: The existence of "Allah" in a language has nothing to do with linguistic change.  A period of enforced atheism has nothing to do with linguistic change.  The only effect that religion has on language is bringing two languages in contact that might not otherwise have been in contact.  In the case of a people converting to Islam, for example, it puts their language in contact with Classical Arabic.  To the extent that Arabic might (or might not) influence the language, that would be the extent of "religion's" influence on the language--not a direct influence, to be sure.  While Soviet presence might put Russian in contact with a language, "atheism" does not have a "liturgical language" associated with it.  Therefore, the mention of "atheistic" in this article is totally inappropriate.  Russian incursion into Tatar areas was beginning long before the Soviet period, but was accelerated during the 20th century.  However, "Soviet" presence is only relevant in a linguistic article to the extent that the Russian language influenced Tatar.  The religious comments about "Allah" and "atheistic" (and probably even "Soviet") are inappropriate here.  Comments about the influence on the language of Arabic and Russian are appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheism is totally irrelevant when discussing linguistic topics.  Stop inserting it into the discussion.  (Taivo (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop adding religious issues back into the article.  Religion has NOTHING to do with language change, only language contact.  The keys are contact with Arabic and Persian and then Russian.  The issue of atheism is especially IRRELEVANT.  (Taivo (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion does not influence language change--Language contact influences language change.  Please stop adding "Allah" and "atheistic" back into the article.  While Islam had a part to play in putting Arabic in contact with Tatar, "atheism" has zero to do with putting Russian in contact with Tatar.  Stop adding in this POV detail into the article.  Second, the old version of this article had too many subdivisions at the beginning.  The template box has this information in table form for a quick read, but too many subheadings makes text unreadable.  Compare this with other language articles and you will see what I mean.  If you have issues, then discuss them here.  Right now you are carrying on absolutely zero discussion.  (Taivo (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep requesting that you discuss your edits here on the Talk Page.  Do not keep adding your religious POV back into the article or formatting the article in ways that are contrary to Wikipedia practices.  This page is here for discussion.  (Taivo (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries are NOT discussion.  I have reverted your edits for two reaons:  1) There were too many subheadings in the opening paragraph making the text unreadable.  Your population figures, for example, were scattered in two different places in the article--the number of speakers in Russia was halfway down the page while the number of Bashkirs who speak Tatar was in the second subheading.  Subheadings should NOT be used for single sentences.  If a person wants to quickly find population figures, that is what the language template box is for.  2) Religion has absolutely nothing to do with language change beyond the fact that it brings languages in contact.  It is only language contact that promotes language change.  The notion that "atheism" promotes language change is completely ludicrous.  (Taivo (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, edit summaries are not sufficient.  Your comment "Mine is better" is not sufficient for Wikipedia purposes of discussion.  I am enumerating the reasons for why I have made the edits I have.  You need to provide the same reasoning why your version is better.  You have done nothing to discuss the issue.  There is obviously a disagreement here.  I have provided you with linguistic reasons why religion is not an appropriate thing to list in a linguistic article other than its purpose in bringing languages in contact, but not in terms of influencing language change.  Atheism is especially irrelevant.  I have also discussed why subheaders should not be overused in an article and especially a subheader over a single sentence.  Please discuss why you think otherwise.  (Taivo (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries are no substitute for discussion.  Your edit summaries consist only of "My version is better".  That is NOT discussion.  (Taivo (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a serious religious POV that needs to be deleted from the article.  Religion has ZERO to do with Linguistics other than its effect in putting languages in contact.  It is ONLY the languages in contact that effect change. (Taivo (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't quibble anymore over the subheading "Geographic Distribution".  It doesn't match what is found in other language articles, however.  But your religious POV must be removed from the article.  It's not "atheism" that reduced the frequency of [h] in Tatar and it wasn't Allah who put it there. (Taivo (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To any third party readers.  I have clearly stated my reasons for removing references to "Allah" and "atheism" in the above paragraphs.  The other editor refuses to either read or respond to issues here on the Talk Page.  He uses the revert button and edit comments to "debate", although he has presented no arguments.  I'm at a loss and frustrated that an edit war has ensued.  (Taivo (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous IP, if you want to include the comment about Arabic, Persian, and Russian influence, then we must remove the irrelevant religious references to "allah" and "atheism".  Otherwise, we stick with the strictly neutral referenced comment without mentioning Arabic, Persian, and Russian loanwords specifically. (Taivo (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello, I was responding to your request for a third opinion. However, the third opinion process needs both parties to be engaged in the discussion. Since 195.210.193.94 isn't discussing his edits here, kawmi's semi-protect will be much more helpful than anything I could do. I'll keep this watched, though, in case things change. AlekseyFy (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion not relevant in linguistics 

message: From the article: “The Tatar language was made a de facto official language in Russia in 1917 (for the first time since 1552, when the Kazan Khanate was annexed by Russia) [..].” Could anyone provide a source, which says that Tatar had an official status in Kazan Khanate? Otherwise, the sentence in brackets should be removed. — Glebchik (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official status 

message: Does anybody know anything about the relationship between Tatar language and Chagatai language? They are very similar in Grammar und Phonetics and I know that Chagatai was used by Tatars, so can one say, that the effect on the Tatar language was very big? Einstein92 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Chagatai language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tatar 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430044601/http://www.usefoundation.org/view/517 to http://www.usefoundation.org/view/517
*Added  tag to http://www.twirpx.com/file/244522/
*Added  tag to http://tugan-tel.at.tt/belem/sarif/
*Added  tag to http://tugan-tel.at.tt/belem/deres/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040713073610/http://www.alabuga.ru/City/History/TatarMyths/ to http://www.alabuga.ru/City/History/TatarMyths/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified