Classifying Turkic

The Turkic languages are usually classified in 6 groups:

1) Southwestern or Oghuz group;
2) Northwestern or Kypchak group;
3) Southestern or Chagatay group;
4) Northeastern or Siberian group;
5) Yakut;
6) Chuvash.

The problem with this classification is that the first 4 groups are too broad and tend to focus more on geography than linguistic similarities.

One problem is where to place Khalaj Turkish. Usually its placed in the Oghuz group, sometimes even as a dialect of Azeri. However, with its strong preservation of archaic Turkic features and its relations to the Old Arghu Dialect, its distinctive language is very different to other Oghuz languages and dialects.

Another problem with this classifications in the placing of Salar Turkish.
Originally one of the 22 Oghuz tribes, the Salar migrated east to China in the 14th century.
Usually they are placed in the Oghuz group, sometimes Chaghatay, and sometimes Kypchak group too.
Yet the language has features from all these groups making it difficult to choose whic group it belings in.

Another problem is with the Siberian group. These languages and dialects can be very different to each other and sometimes even completely unintelligible.
For example Chulym Turkic has 2 dialects. Middle Chulym and Lower Chulym. Lower Chulym is more alike the Northern Altay dialects such as Tuba, Kumandi and Chalkandu. Middle Chulym is closer to Khakas.
The Altay Turkic dialects are also very different. The southern Altay dialects of the Altay Kiji, Telengut and Teleut are different to the Northern Altay dialects.

These are just a few of the many problems.

Talat Tekin has come up with a different classification grouping by applying phonetic principles to classifying the languages. This way leads to 12 seperate groups.
These 12 groups are:

1) Oghuz group - Turkish; Azeri; Turkmen; Trukhmen; khorosan Turkish; Khwarezm Oghuz; Kashkay, Eynallu, Kirkuk and Erbil dialects; Gagauz.
2) Kypchak group - Tatar; Bashkir; Kazakh; Karakalpak; Nogay; Kumuk; Karachay-Balkar; Karay; Crimean Tatar; Baraba Tatar; Khwarezm Kypchak.
3) Chaghatay group - Uzbek; New Uighur
4) Kyrghyz
5) Written Altay - Altay Kiji (Oyrot), Telengit, Tele�t
6) Northern Altay Group - Tuba, Kumandi, Chalkandu; Lower Chulym; Kondom; Lower Tom
7) Yenisei-Abakan, Yellow Uighur and Khakas group - A. khakas; Middle Chulym; Mras, Upper Tom dialects. B. Yellow Uighur
8) Tuva group - Tuva; Tofa
9) Salar
10) Khalaj
11) Yakut - A. Sakha B. Dolgan
12) Chuvash

Talat Tekin's classification would appear to be a more accurate grouping of the Turkic languages and dialects.

Khalajs are related to Azeries, Almost all shie, Turkic speakers are related to Azeries.These people look like to Iranians, They use the word TARI for god like scythians.Considering Azeries as OGHuz peopel could be questionable. Azeries could be scythians living in central asia and caucase, assimilated by Turks in some degreeand moved to Iranian lands.Their culture always was Iranian instead of Turkic, it is applicable to all Turkic Tribe living in Iran or afghanistan, Iraq and Alavie turks of Anatolia. the oghuz peopel were Sunni and use the TENGRI for god. The Turkmens are the only people could be the oghuz Turks.

1. How do we know what Scythians used as they didn't have a written language.

Edited by Bulldog - 03-Dec-2006 at 13:18

Originally posted by Bulldog I think the classification is pretty accurate, the only questionable part I find is "Crimean Tatar" and "Nogay", while originally they are Kipchak branch, they were heavily influenced by Oghuz branch due to the Ottoman's and today their Turkic is close to this Turkic. They overlap in my opinion,

Talat Tekin notes there are differences between the Central dialect and Southern dialect.
The southern dialect is oghuz, sometimes called Crimean Oslmanli, but the central dialect is Kypchak.
However he goes on to say that the written language of Crimean Tatar has a number of borrowings from the southern dialect which would most likely explain the similarities with Oghuz Turkic.

Also, the Balkans and Cypriot Turks are Oghuz.

I assume they would be considered Turkish dialects.

Originally posted by gok_toruk I suppose, Salar shouldn't be considered as�an isolated or distinct language since its originally a Turkmen�dialect.

I think what he was trying to do is classify the languages as they are today.
He does say that the Salar were one of the Oghuz tribes, however due to their migration east and contact with other Turkic languages and non-Turkic languages, such as Tibetan and Chinese, their language as been influenced to an extent that it would be difficult to classify them alongside the other Oghuz languages.
I think this is his reason for giving Salar a seperate classification.

The book im reading that has this classifications gives a few sentences in Salar.

Anigi apasi takka yirtux vurma vamish - His father went shooting.

Pu a'tcuz yaxshi a'ttir - This is a good horse.

Pu oy minigidur - This house is mine

Pu zanzu sinigi ider-o? is this cup yours?

Men sinigi kuyung iter - i am your husband.

Vular va'por - They are going

Seler varoxtyr - you aren't going

Piser varaloxtyr - we can't go

AyKurt

Edited by Bulldog - 04-Dec-2006 at 16:15

I think Telet Tekin's calssification is more phonomenical. I'd like to draw your attention to Lars Johanson's classification, which is claimed to be done according to the genetic and typological features of Turkic languages, and similar to the first classification.

http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/classification.html

Anigi apasi takka yirtux vurma vamish -His father went shooting.

Edited by gok_toruk - 05-Dec-2006 at 00:25

Originally posted by barbar I think Telet Tekin's calssification is more phonomenical. I'd like to draw your attention to Lars Johanson's classification, which is claimed to be done according to the genetic and typological features of Turkic languages, and similar to the first classification. http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/classification.html

Originally posted by shinai Is that right to put Azerbaijani in SW,w group?Shouldn't it be in SW,s?

Maybe Qashqay is more easily understandable to an Azari than Anatolian turkish, but these closeness is mainly due to the Persian influence in both Qashqay and Azari, if you disconsider the persian element, then you will find Azari is closer to Anatolian Turkish than to Qashay. Linguistical classification is based on more basic elements.


    
    

Edited by barbar - 08-Dec-2006 at 00:45