Talk:Old Turkic script

message: Another image that might pertain to this article is this one, which says it's an image of the Kul Tigin monument that has the Orkhon script in it. I can't figure out where in the article it should go, though. :Image:Kultigin_monument.jpg --76.200.138.185 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kul Tigin monument image 

message: This article keeps going from being flippant in tone to glorifying. Perhaps a balance could be found. It would also be useful to start stating sources in the talk page. --Son of the Tundra 09:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of Article and Sources 

message: Am I only one who finds that orkhon letter "Z" resembles roman & greek letter 'Z'?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.186.130 (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z 

message: This alphabet is not a form of Sogdian alphabet. Here some letters and their origins:
 → B came from Balık (Fish in Turkish)
 → Y came from Yay (Bow in Turkish)
 → Oq or Ok came from Ok (Arrow in Turkish)
 → Ök came from Ök (Ram in old Turkish) but that letter is vertical version, horizontal version can be found other scripts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.110.194 (talk • contribs) 
:80.145.110.194, sorry, I do not have good sources to list the autochtonous origin of the Turkic Alphabets, and therefore I included only 4 theories of origin. Your example shows that the 5th theory, advocated by some prominent Türkologists, including, I think, Scherbak, also belongs to the description of theories of origin. Barefact 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sogdian 

message: NY is for sure /nʤ/, not /nj/!
Look at russian version
24.218.13.86 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Y /j/ or /ʤ/? 

message: The -NG [ŋ] letter looks very similar to elder futhark [n] (Nauþiz) rune. The only difference is that futhark version pierces through vertical line. Could it be a connection?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.186.108 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Although the west totally denies this futhark also derives from Old Turkic. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common letter? 

message: It had said/says:"These alphabets are divided into four groups by Kyzlasov" and then Turanian group was mentioned.  Such a language does not exist so this makes Kyzlasov unreliable.  Same with " A. S. Amanzholov" which had already been discussed by dab(Amanzholov claims ancient near eastern languages are altaic).  So lets just get some reliable scholars and remove these two.    Overall article is good, but these two sources need to be removed or real scholars be mentioned. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall article is good, but Kyzlasov's categorization is probably wrong since he forged a Turanian script(no such language or script).  So I suggest that portion be removed.  I'll put it in the appropriate section, and remove Amanzholov, which does not meet WP:RS.  Overall again, the article is informative, but we should find someone else except Kyzlasov.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here check this: .  We can rewrite that section based on it and I will remove the tag.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that whole variant section is POV, since it was from Kyzlasov.  Alans, Sogdians, Turanians (mythical people)  and etc. were POV.  I think the variant is the similar runiform script found in different places.  So my suggestion is that we remove that section, since the rest of the article is sound and informative.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: dispute tag

message: see etruscan at ;http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/pix/lemnos.gif there are many same characters between them. do you know any research about it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are similarities between the scripts, because they are ultimately both descended from Phoenician. But it is a mistake to simply look at two glyphs that look alike and conclude a relationship between those two letters. -- Evertype·✆ 09:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: turkic is not indo-european, like etruscan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.9.35 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Turkic languages are non-Indo-European. And the Etruscan language is non-Indo-European. But that is irrelevant: we are not talking about languages here, but writing systems. As it happens, Old Turkic, Old Italic, Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, Runic, Hebrew, Arabic, and all the Brahmic scripts of India and South Asia are all ultimately derived from scripts used by Semitic speakers. As I say, the similarities between Old Turkic and Old Italic are mostly surface similarities. Shape alone does not show relationship. Relationship can be shown, back via Phoenician. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: OT and Etruscan don't look very similar to me at all, except for both being scratched onto rock. kwami (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The west tries to deny Turkish origins of Etruscans brother :) and this is Wikipedia. Here facts don't matter they just look at what is commonly accepted in the western world and everything else is just "your personal interpretation". HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities between Old Turkic and Etruscan alphabet 

message: This part in the intro: This similarity is superficial, however.[1] All alphabetic scripts used for incision in hard surfaces show this tendency (see Old Italic alphabets for other examples).. This needs explanation and clarification. As it stands, the sentence All alphabetic scripts used for incision in hard surfaces show this tendency... is POV. The Rosetta stone is inscribed in stone and it does not look runic. The existing citation does not help explain anything, i.e. does not provide reasons from the sources. Also, some sources do suggest that the Turkic script was independently derived and that should be stated. WillMall (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro needs explanation and citations 

message: old Turkic did not come from Soghdian, they are two totally different langauges originating from different areas. one is Iranian, one is Turkish  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.114.108 (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I've restored the changes you made regarding the classification of this script. I've also restored some older paragraphs from the origins section which appeared to have been removed at some point. It's important to understand that the origin of a writing system is not the same as the origin of the language that uses it. For example, Vietnamese is written nowadays with a Latin script, like English, but clearly Vietnamese and English are not related. As far as I know there is no evidence for an independent origin of the Old Turkic script. Arzchena (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually now there are. Researchers like Sevret Somuncuoğlu, Kazım Mirşan and Sinan Meydan have proven this. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Could someone please revert the recent inappropriate edits by User:Got Milked which have introduced into the article a comment I made in an edit summary, and which confuses my Wikipedia persona with my real life persona. As one of the co-authors of the Old Turkic encoding proposal I have deliberately avoided making any significant contributions to this article, and have only made a total of 3 edits (all reversions), so in no way could I be considered an "important contributor to this article". To avoid any further misunderstanding I will not make any further edits to this page, however minor. BabelStone (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate edits by user Got Milked 

message: i can't see the unicode characters in "Unicode" section. tried both firefox and ie. the encoding is UTF-8. i think there are other people who can't see the chracters, either. i know that's not a help page but i thought it is the right place since the problem may cause only when it's the Old Turkic script. What should i do?--78.163.192.221 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use a font that supports Old Turkic. -- Evertype·✆ 11:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicode

message: I have assessed this article as importance=Mid. Due to the paucity of extant Old Turkic inscriptions/manuscripts and the lack of a modern or historically crucial descendent script. Members of WikiProject Writing Systems may revise this assessment but should list their reasoning in response to this comment. Vanisaac (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Writing Systems assessment

message: I understand that Semitists want to originate everything in Semits. They even claimed that Turks are descendants of Japheth.
There is another party which tries to "erase" Turkish history in the interest of Persian "history"!
There is this third group of Chinese ones emerging as a new branch of "There is no Turk! There was no Turkish!" argument.
In this article, I found all these Anti-Turkist arguments.
Old Turkish alphabet being descandant of Persian(!) ones which in turn are Semitic(!). The Chinese argument is represented as the alternative one. It is like "If you don't like to be shot by gun we have knife!"
And this fiction is represented as "mainstream" ! (appearantly Turkish scholars are not counted, they don't exist)
Why there is no argument from Turkish scholars? Isn't this article about Turks? Where are Turks in this article? Turks don't have a say on themselves according to Wikipedia administrators who constantly remove sourced content?
If it is Sogdian why don't you put Turkish and Sogdian alphabets in a two rows table? Let readers decide who is the liar.
I don't expect Wikipedia administrators (who are notoriously Aryanist or Semitist) to let authors put the statements of Turkish scholars on this article. Just put that da*n table.
Let readers see Sogdian and Turkish letters one under the other. LEt them compare those alphabets.
Just put the table.--98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 🙏🏻 thank you for these words brother. wikipedia is one sided and will do anything to deny proven facts HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I have compared Old Sogdian and Orkhon side by side. The affinities are pretty obvious. If you can't see it, it's probably because you don't want to, or maybe you're looking at cursive Sogdian (look at the /a/ characters for example - they're identical). In any event, Chinese observers of the time even remarked on their similarity. It's obviously modified quite a bit, but relative to most script adaptations between disparate languages like Sogdian and Old Turkic, it's nothing shocking. Compare the adaptation of Kharosthi from Aramaic. Tarchon (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sogdian Claim 

message: Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)
https://archive.org/details/dertrkischetext00albegoog
Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)
https://archive.org/details/inscriptionsdel00thomgoog
Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)
https://archive.org/details/berdiekktr00banguoft
Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)
https://archive.org/details/wrterverzeichni00donngoog
Rajmaan (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German works on Old Turkic inscriptions 

message: I'm an absolute layman regarding runic alphabet. By coincidence, I found  an interesting website that claims a very amazing  assumption. According to the author, some Skandinavian stones ​​can be read with the orchun alphabet with  a sensefull content,  even with a referance to the picture on the stone. That seems far-fetched to me, so I've been looking at tis article for more information on the topic. Therefore, my question to the professional world is, can this be true or is author making a joke ?
Here is the page with the thesis and the respective transcriptions: http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/index.htm 
Thanks for your feedback on this !!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.107 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities between Old Turkic and Scandinavian alphabet 

message: The first Futhark Runes is found around 70 BC in German coast. 
The first Orchon Runes is found after 450 AD in Asia. The german runes are older. 
Fact is that the gotic people have cooperated from 375 AD to 450 AD with the huns. In this time came it to the culture chance between Gotes and Huns. Attila had a gotic grandma and a gotic woman. He was a man with half east germanic roots. 
The Orchon runes is a turk script, but after the sample from germanic runes. 
It is important to understand, the orchon runes are in old turk language, not a 1:1 copy of german runes. It is self created by  the huns from Uldin and Attila, what is inspired from the germanic runes and her forms. You can not directly translate from Germanic Runes in Turk Runes.
The Germanic runes is a idea from the Hallstatt time (HA C). The hallstatt culture have connect to the norican tribe, a hallstatt-venetian-culture-remix. So came the venetian-etruscian Letters to the Germans as Runes, and the german runes to the Orchon River. The Magyar, Bolgar and Turk mythology have the same source, and the Orchon runes is the early form of magyar, oldturkic runes and influence of the old church slavic letters. The Gotic-Hunnic time is the connect between europe and asia.
I hope now is clear the mysterium of connect between germanic and orchon Runes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.217.170 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a discussion board. All of that would be interesting on a web forum, but here we want sources that meet WP:RS if you want to change the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futhark and Orchon Runes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Old Turkic alphabet. 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/20070927213243/http://www.kyrgyz.ru/?page=148 to http://www.kyrgyz.ru/?page=148
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) 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does any of the sources crlarify what vowels follow consonants not from the Synharmonic sets? If yes could someone add that please? --LonleyGhost (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on which quality is inherent with the "normal" consonants 

message: There is a connection in some of the letters in the script in terms of their shape, sound and the object (lexical meaning) they refer to. These connections can only be explained via Turkic languages:
Letter           Lex. Meaning               Shape       
eb                    house                       a tent
at (ta?)  throw (mountain?)   Showing upwards
El                    hand           a hand with 2 fingers?
Er                man        a two-armed upright being
(E?)m             em : suck             a breast
(A?)ch            ach : open              an angle
ich                inside      3 lines, one in the middle
Ek                 sow         a farming tool?
Ant         traditional oath drink           a filled cup
Alt; sub;  2 high points and a valley in between
Ay or yay; moon or arch; half-moon or an arch
Ok ( ⬇)     arrow     an arrow
(E?)ng; eng : most?; a person pointing above?
* Sounds are the consonants.
Due to the examples above, I claim that the script can't have, at least fully, come from another preceding script such as Sogdian because some of the letters above must have been created by Turkic speaking people. I don't object that it may have been created after a Sogdian fashion but it cannot have been fully descended from it or another script. 144.122.130.181 (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association with the Turkic language 

message: The sogdian claim is written with bad intentions. The sogdian alphabet never has influenced the runic alphabet of Turks. It influenced the Uyghur alphabet. The first known alphabet of Turks are the runic alphabet and the second known is the Uygur alphabet.
The writing systems of both languages are different. This is also not a new info.
The oldest scripts are not anymore the Orkhun runes but the legacy of İlterish, probably 7th century.it is the oldest Turk runes and it was written in two languages. Turk Runes and also in Sogdian alphabet. Which means the turk runes were already existing with the sogdian alphabet.
Main difference of Sogdian is, every letter has 3 shapes while the Turk runes doesn't even involve vowels and every letter has one shape. Besides the Turk runes have punctuation rule to seperate different words, which indicates a grammatical structure extremely different than sogdian.
In a nutshell, no, runes are not a variation of sogdian but the uyghur alphabet. 2A04:4540:6518:5200:B532:C8B:A670:DAC8 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalist false sogdian claim.