|
 |
Turkish family of languages | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Jarel Diglot Groupie Turkey Joined 4316 days ago 57 posts - 77 votes  Speaks: Turkish*, English Studies: Italian, German | Message 73 of 88 19 June 2013 at 8:08am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I understood only 3 words in total in that text, two being "republic of kazakhstan" which i'm sure pretty obvious to any european language speaker. I don't mean to be rude or insulting, but no way in hell a native Turkish speaker can have this high passive understanding of Kazakh. Simply not possible.
3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| za20 Newbie Germany Joined 4187 days ago 35 posts - 64 votes Speaks: English | Message 74 of 88 29 July 2013 at 10:59pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Hey man You can be rude, I do not care about it. It shows how quality a man you are. It is easy to be rude when you hear something opposite to your views. It is ok for me. As for the text above that you did not understand, it is an official job announcement. Of course such official documents use a high-level language and high-level words. I always say "Kazakh and Turkish speakers can communicate at everday-life basic level, if they speak slowly and if they use basic words." I think your problem is the Cyrillic Alphabet. Now I will give you a link that contains a Kazakh Grammar book. That book uses both the Cyrillic and Latin Alphabets. I am sure (if you are not prejudiced and if you don't have problems with Turkish), you will understand some 90 % of it. You will see how close Kazakh and Turkish are. You will see how mutually intelligible Kazakh and Turkish are, definetely much more mutually intelligible than you and some people claim. Here is the link: http://uz-translations.net/?category=kazbooks-kazakh&altname =introduction_to_kazak 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7146 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 75 of 88 29 July 2013 at 11:46pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Big deal. Replace "Kazakh" and "Turkish" with "Bulgarian" and "Slovak" and there's nothing remarkable or enlightening about the mutual intelligibility. This is very different from claiming 90% mutual intelligibility.
It smells as if you're conflating "understanding 90%" (i.e. mutual intelligibility is 90%*) with "understanding 90% of the rationale or principles in Kazakh grammar/word-formation". Big deal. Neither you nor anyone else from Anatolia would be surprised by vowel harmony, agglutination, the basic vocabulary, cases, or some of the tense-aspect-mood considerations in Kazakh. But put those things together, and understanding the rationale or technical considerations of the prime matter is not the same as being able to nearly seamlessly understand a stream of native communication. What's also telling is that you've continued to avoid answering solka's question about recounting to us what those Kazakh samples entailed apart from your glib "Of course, I can understand it." before launching into tangents and getting defensive. Your summary of the sample in the last post is a start, but it seems as if you merely recognize that it's a job posting. You don't actually offer a translation of what the job posting entails and who would be the suitable candidate (of course, though, I could cynically note that a subsequent explanation/translation on your part of that sample could be supplied after you've consulted a Kazakh-Turkish/English dictionary and/or reference manual of Kazakh grammar). I will give you this: you have the makings of a spin-doctor in the rough. Have you considered employment at Boeing's PR department for the 787? Your abilities in avoiding contradicting evidence would be useful there. *- a dubious claim when confronted with the analysis presented here and observations from other Turks and a fluent speaker of Kazakh from Kazakhstan. 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| !LH@N Triglot Senior Member Germany Joined 6811 days ago 487 posts - 531 votes Speaks: German, Turkish*, English Studies: Serbo-Croatian, Spanish | Message 76 of 88 30 July 2013 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I agree with Chung and call za20 out on bullshit.
Chung, nice reference to Boeing. Are you in the aviation industry? Cheers, Ilhan 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| za20 Newbie Germany Joined 4187 days ago 35 posts - 64 votes Speaks: English | Message 77 of 88 05 September 2013 at 10:04am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
wow! Some of our intellectual here are being rude and starting to insult. But it is okey for me.
I think some of you never read what I wrote or you don't want to understand what I am saying. It is nonsense to say that the mutual intelligibilty between Kazakh and Turkish is zero. I am writing again what I want to say. I hope this time that you will understand what I am trying to say. The main structures of Kazakh and Turkish grammars are almost the same. When I read a text in Kazakh, there are some words whose meanings I don't know but they do not prevent me from understanding the general meaning of it. And I never claimed that Kazakh and Turkish speakers can communicate perfectly %100. But they can communicate in basic daily conversations, if they speak slowly and if they use basic words. So what are basic daily conversations ? These are basic daily conversations: introduction, shopping, asking directions, asking way, at pharmacy, at the doctor's, at post office, ordering meal at a restaurant, buying a ticket, renting a car, hobbies etc. So Kazakh and Turkish speakers can communicate in these basic daily situations, but if they speak slowly and if they use basic words. And please look: This is my first message on this thread. Look at my message of Nr. 54, in this message, I said this: "From my experience, I can say that if two Turkic people meet and if they speak slowly and if they use basic words, they can easily communicate, at least everyday-conversation basic level. There is no problem. When I was in Germany, I had some Kazakh friends from Kazakhstan who had never exposure to Turkish before, we managed to communicate. The grammars of the Turkic Languages are almost the same. There are some pronounciation differences, and some wocabulary differences. If we use basic wocabulary, we can communicate." I think your problem is the Cyrillic Alphabet. Now I will give you a link that contains a Kazakh Grammar book. That book uses both the Cyrillic and Latin Alphabets. I am sure (if you are not prejudiced and if you don't have problems with Turkish), you will understand some 90 % of it. You will see how close Kazakh and Turkish are. You will see how mutually intelligible Kazakh and Turkish are, definetely much more mutually intelligible than you and some people claim. Here is the link: http://uz-translations.net/?category=kazbooks-kazakh&altname =introduction_to_kazak and another link: Dictionary of Turkic Languages. http://uz-translations.net/?category=turkdics-turkish-uzbdic s-uzbek-tatdics-tatar-azdics-azeri-kazdics-kazakh-kyrdics-ky rgyz-turdics-turkmen-uidics-uighur&altname=dictionary_of_the _turkic_languages And here is a link from a Kazakh forum. There, you can see that Kazakh people share almost the same opinion with me. http://www.kazakh.ru/talk/mmess.phtml?idt=4131 Please first read these books above first. And write here then. Cheers. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7146 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 78 of 88 07 September 2013 at 4:37am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
No one has said that the mutual intelligibility is zero.
Your reading comprehension of Kazakh will vary widely as to be less meaningful than you believe or are trying to make others believe. Your comprehension is heavily dependent on the text's subject matter and/or register. This anecdote in firespeaker's second comment about how the variable intelligibility between Kazakh and the closely-related Kyrgyz should illustrate how dependent it is on context, register, content or the levels of exposure in the people involved even among languages which are more closely related.
Those are hardly basic daily conversations. By that logic then we can say that tourists have basic conversational ability in some language if they can effectively use the material in their phrasebooks smoothly and in ways that are comprehensible to the target audience (read as: without a thick accent that would obscure the meaning of the sentence even to native speakers). All that you're describing is basically survival level knowledge and this is a far cry from basic conversations or small talk that start with "Hey, how's the family doing?" or "So, how about that game last night between Cimbom and Kara-Kartal yesterday? What'd you think of that penalty in extra time?" or "Man, my bosses are such pieces of work. You know what they did to me today?"
So what? This is no more remarkable than a Pole in Bulgaria trying to buy a ticket at a railroad station using only his native language and somehow making out what the clerk is saying who speaks her native Bulgarian only. This is hardly a basic or daily conversation. Your seeming delight at being able to relate elements of Kazakh grammar to that of your native Turkish is no more remarkable than if I were to open a book on Swedish grammar and see how similar it is to English grammar. However I'd be a fool to think that just because I can understand or recognize readily many concepts in Swedish grammar that I can then magically apply that recognition usefully with a native but monolglot Swede and have a "basic daily conversation" where I use only English, and he/she uses only Swedish. The bottom line is that if Turkish is your native language and the only Turkic one that you've ever been exposed to at a mentionable level, then the only other Turkic languages that you can understand almost immediately with minimal formal study are Azeri and Gagauz (Meskhetian Turkish is even closer, and it's debatable if it's distinct enough from Turkish or Azeri to be considered a separate language as opposed to something transitional between Turkish and Azeri). The mutual intelligibility between Turkish and either of the other two appears to be about 90% +/- 5% which incidentally is similar to what you'd experience if you'd compare Czech and Slovak and observe Czechs and Slovaks interact with each other using only their native languages. It's no accident that within Turkic languages, Turkish and Azeri are in the Oğuz subgroup. Contrast that with Kazakh being in the Kypchak subgroup. The Anatolian Turk will not have it so easy when dealing with Turkic languages further east. It's much more plausible that among those who speak Turkic languages, the only monoglots who can boast of being able to understand Kazakh with next to no formal study and often use just their own language with monoglots Kazakhs in situations beyond touristic exchanges would be the Nogays or Karakalpaks, and to a large extent the Kyrgyz. I'm going to try to be nice to you and show some Youtube clips of various Turkic languages. I haven't a clue of what the people are talking about since I've only recently restarted my studies in Turkish and can barely understand the Turkish clip. Yet they should make it clear that differences in pronunciation (and presumably different vocabulary and use of grammatical elements) would make it highly unlikely that an Anatolian Turk who knows only Turkish can almost seamlessly interact with someone who doesn't know or speak Turkish (or Azeri or Gagauz) unless the language used has been deliberately "dumbed-down". That is it'd be expressed unnaturally slowly and clearly or with rarely used words or collocations that cater to monoglot Anatolian Turks but are on the border of being ungrammatical for those non-Anatolian Turks. The only clips that I would expect you to understand and/or appreciate most other than the Turkish one would be the ones for Azeri and Gagauz. The rest wouldn't be so easy on you, and if you're lucky you'd be limited to grasping a cluster of two or three sentences, or at worse maybe just every 5th word or so. Turkish Gagauz Azeri Turkmen Bashkir Karakalpak Kazakh Kyrgyz Nogay Tatar Uyghur Uzbek And I'd be damned if you can honestly understand the following samples as if they were in Turkish (or Azeri or Gagauz). Even I can tell that they sound very different from the Oğuz languages. Chuvash Sakha Tofa The corollary is that you shouldn't feel shattered or disappointed if you react or answer inappropriately after having been addressed by some Kazakh speaking only Kazakh to you with the expectation that you the Anatolian Turk can understand him/her without a problem. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| fireballtrouble Triglot Senior Member Turkey Joined 4514 days ago 129 posts - 203 votes Speaks: Turkish*, French, English Studies: German | Message 79 of 88 07 September 2013 at 10:20am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
In my idea, mutual intelligibility can only be observed by "phone calls" between familiar
languages. Because while you are in a face-to-face conversation, you may miss the level of comprehension, one may consider it higher than it really is. But phone call is a directly "understand or not" situation. I'm native in Turkish, I can handle a conversation with an Azeri, that's for sure. But with a Kazakh or Kyrgyz, I can't even dare to answer the call. 6 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7146 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 80 of 88 07 September 2013 at 3:40pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
That's a valid point. You also don't get cues from body language when on the phone, thus making the matter of intelligibility strictly focused on the sounds being exchanged. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
