Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Why did the Turkish alphabet change?

 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room Post Reply
14 messages over 2 pages: 1 2  Next >>
CaucusWolf
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5272 days ago

191 posts - 234 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Arabic (Written), Japanese

 
 Message 1 of 14
27 August 2011 at 7:12am | IP Logged 
            I'm very interested in Turkish and became very confused when I found out that the script is no longer Ottoman(Arabic/perisan) script and is now a modified latin script. So far I've read that it was because of literacy issues, but this makes no sense to me. Ottoman(Arabic/persian)are Phonetic alphabets and unlike Chinese take a week or two to learn.
            Is there perhaps something within turkish that is hindered in the modified Ottomon(Arabic/Persian) script?? Or was this purely political in nature??
1 person has voted this message useful



Cabaire
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5599 days ago

725 posts - 1352 votes 

 
 Message 2 of 14
27 August 2011 at 8:27am | IP Logged 
The Arabic alphabet is originally an abjad, so you are forced to leave out the vowels or use consonants as vowel indicaters.
So for example in Ottoman Turkis the letter vav (و) stood not only for the consonant v, but for a whole range of vowels: o, ö, u, ü.
This is far from perfect.

Of course the latinisation was a political decision. One wanted a break from the Ottoman past and language reform aimed at returkify the language, shun many Arabic and Persian loanwords and some foreign grammatical constructions.

Arabic script is only ideal for semitic languages, Persian also does not fit well into this writing costume.
7 persons have voted this message useful



Doitsujin
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5320 days ago

1256 posts - 2363 votes 
Speaks: German*, English

 
 Message 3 of 14
27 August 2011 at 9:29am | IP Logged 
BTW, a relatively little known fact is that the Turkish language reform not only changed the alphabet but also the vocabulary, which had far-reaching consequences.
One of the most outspoken critics about this aspect of the language reform was noted Turkologist Geoffrey Lewis.
For more information about this see his lecture The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success.

Edited by Doitsujin on 27 August 2011 at 9:30am

6 persons have voted this message useful



CaucusWolf
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5272 days ago

191 posts - 234 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Arabic (Written), Japanese

 
 Message 4 of 14
28 August 2011 at 7:26am | IP Logged 
Thank you both for the helpful comments.   The link that Doitsujin gave was very informative.
1 person has voted this message useful



Lugubert
Heptaglot
Senior Member
Sweden
Joined 6867 days ago

186 posts - 235 votes 
Speaks: Swedish*, Danish, Norwegian, EnglishC2, German, Dutch, French
Studies: Mandarin, Hindi

 
 Message 5 of 14
19 September 2011 at 11:03pm | IP Logged 
Cabaire wrote:
Of course the latinisation was a political decision. One wanted a break from the Ottoman past and language reform aimed at returkify the language, shun many Arabic and Persian loanwords and some foreign grammatical constructions.

I think that one of the main political points was that Mustafa Kemal Pascha wanted to drive Turkey towards Europe.

Quote:
Arabic script is only ideal for semitic languages, Persian also does not fit well into this writing costume.

I don't think that the normal use of the Arabic script is ideal anywhere. I can fairly correctly read what's written in several languages that I don't understand too well but for which I know the script, but to read normal (i.e. mainly vowel free) Arabic, you have to know the grammar.

Edited by Lugubert on 19 September 2011 at 11:04pm

3 persons have voted this message useful



my lost lenore
Diglot
Newbie
Turkey
Joined 4797 days ago

6 posts - 12 votes
Speaks: Turkish*, English
Studies: Russian, Arabic (classical)

 
 Message 6 of 14
08 October 2011 at 12:59am | IP Logged 
For political reasons indeed. It was about M.Kemal's rejection of Ottoman legacy. Now almost no one can read any text written just three generation before. I always opposed such a social engineering. It's strictly a facist application.

And so I learned latin alphabet first, which took several months despite arabic alphabet took just 5 days...
2 persons have voted this message useful



xuxakat
Tetraglot
Newbie
Germany
Joined 4748 days ago

15 posts - 17 votes
Speaks: German*, Italian, Spanish, English
Studies: Turkish, Arabic (Levantine)

 
 Message 7 of 14
29 November 2011 at 11:20pm | IP Logged 
I think that you are in parts right: you can question whether changing the alphabetic
(and several other politics of Atatürk) were right. But I think that in Turkish vowels
are very important and very variable (and you have quite many as compared to Arabic that
has 3 long ones that are written and three short ones..). So I don't think that this was
his worst decision. But this is quite subjective, I guess.
It is normal, however, that the first alphabet takes longer to be learned then the
following ones. I never had difficulties in learning the Arabic, Hebrew or Cyrillic
alphabet although it also took me months to learn the Latin one - because I had to get
used to the concept of scripture and to the activity of actually writing. I think it is
like that for everyone - as long as the basic system of scripture is more or less the
same
2 persons have voted this message useful



Camundonguinho
Triglot
Senior Member
Brazil
Joined 4749 days ago

273 posts - 500 votes 
Speaks: Portuguese*, English, Spanish
Studies: Swedish

 
 Message 8 of 14
30 November 2011 at 3:10am | IP Logged 
my lost lenore wrote:
For political reasons indeed. It was about M.Kemal's rejection of Ottoman legacy. Now almost no one can read any text written just three generation before. I always opposed such a social engineering. It's strictly a facist application.

And so I learned latin alphabet first, which took several months despite arabic alphabet took just 5 days...


But it's not only the alphabet but the dialect. Ottoman Turkish has little in common with modern Istambul Turkish, most of vocabulary is different.


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 14 messages over 2 pages: 2  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 4.2813 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.