Talk:Oghuric languages

message: The article contains this sentence:
The Oghur languages are characterized by sound correspondences such as Oghuric l versus š and Oghuric r versus z. Oghuric is sometimes referred to as.
Well, referred to as what ????
--Sukkoth 08:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is bogus. It refers to the Bulgaric languages which are for no logical reason re-named "Oghuric" on the strength of some books by a mediocre Business Studies student and "Khazaria" amateur enthusiast Kevin Alan Brook. A shameless self-promotion and advertising scam which has polluted far too many articles on Wikipedia. At the same time, your Business studies lecturers were wong about you, you should have got a first class degree with honours simply for coming up with such an ingenious business plan Kevin. My hat is off to you on that account Kevin. 31.55.78.170 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely correct John, Oguric refers to Kipchaqized Ugric whereby Chuvash is the only known example. The idea that the Pannonian Avars spoke Oguric rather than Ugric is however nothing but a fringe theory popular among pan-Turkist Hungarians. Hunnic on the other hand is certainly nothing but a Kipchaq language, while there is no evidence that Bulgar and Khazar were anything other than dialects of Oghuz.31.55.121.190 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: John might be confusing Bulgar with Bulgarian though, admittedly, the references to the work of Brook would be more relevant in the article on Khazar than it is here where we're dealing with the linguistic classification of Turkic and not with the hypothetical religions of the speakers of any of these languages.  Eklir (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Same case and words again. Will edit the article when have time. I don't remember when said Pritsak was not a specialist in his field, actually I highly regard him as a scholar and already several times used his considerations and will in the future. In the second source by Antoaneta Granberg were used outdated sources for reference, yet again the conclusion was the same, which IP intentionally ignores: Huns and Bulgars, while Mongoloid in origin, have Europoid traces... Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke Altaic language... The Huns were precursors of the Turkic peoples both in the historic and cultural respect, but not in the linguistic one as the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there (China, 6th century). Everything else you already know.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean ??? 

message: In other Turkic too have: күз - eyes and күр(ергә) - see.--Чӑваш (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  z - r 

message: ÖKÜZ translates as OX to English.
Also, I personally think that giving ÖKÜZ as an example is derogatory as 'ÖKÜZ' can be used as a slang word in Common Turkic. Elasolova (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Please provide WP:RS supporting the translations you wish to be incorporated.Winged Blades Godric 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: - Sites maintained by anonymous users are not considered reliable. Neither is Wikipedia itself. Please provide reliable secondary sources, and read here for examples. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Done — Train2104 (t • c) 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017 

message: Avar should be replaced with Pannonian Avar as the modern Avar alnguage is not a Oghar language according to its article 70.20.38.210 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: "Avar" in the infobox already links to Pannonian Avars, so I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for. If you can clarify your request please reactivate the  tag by following the instructions above. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017 

message: These illiterate don't learn don't know their own language where "öküz" (oghuz) - "ox (bull)" in Azerbaijani, Turkish and Turkmen languages. In the Kipchak they don’t know that in Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Bashkir, the word "ox (bull)" is written as buka (буга). Used rotacism *r < z
ogur < ökör < wăgăr < ox, bull
oguz < öküz < ox, bull
kipchak < buka < ox, bull 
These Turks compare the modern language... and these people edit Wikipedia, well, like a ballerina repairing a Boeing. Won Woghur (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Kazakh ögiz. What do you mean? Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Buka is bull, not ox. ox is ögiz in Kiphcak. See my table Draft:Turkic languages phonologic table, make a table acc. to these features. You can not say oguz comes from öküz, this is totally wrong. Oğuz comes from ok which means tribe and has no relation with öküz. What's your source about these two are related, even so ox is not oguz in any previous or modern Turkic language. BurakD53 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're saying something so illogical that it took me a while to understand. You claim that the word Kipchak comes from the word buka. This is funny and untrue in every way. Of the sounds found in the buka, only the k sound is in the word kipchak, and I am very curious how you will explain how the buka turns into the word kipchak. Sorry, I don't mean to insult, but I'm really curious. Can you please explain?😂 BurakD53 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Buğa in Azerbaijani is bull or ox. 5.197.218.86 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  As I believe this page is controlled by pan-Turkists and neo-Ottomanists 

message: can you revert all of his edits? He's simply misleading people with false references. + reported him for block evasion and he got blocked. Beshogur (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaryani