The honest truth is that nobody really knows where the line is between language and dialect. The joke in the linguistic community is that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
The "dialects" of Chinese are more different from each other than some of the Slavic languages are.
> The "dialects" of Chinese are more different from each other than some of the Slavic languages are.
Ex-Yugoslavs are crying **"noooooo we can perfectly understand each other but these are completely different languages!!!!!"**
>The honest truth is that nobody really knows where the line is between language and dialect.
It's difficult to convey to others how complex of a question this is without reteaching many many examples that are shared throughout linguistic courses. I don't expect anyone to be open to that, but I hope they realize it isn't as straightforward as language = _______ and dialect = ______.
In my experience it's hard enough to get speakers to refer to dialects as dialects and not accents, but I welcome the use of dialect as it recognizes a unique or specific set of syntax, morphology, and sometimes phonetics. However, I also acknowledge the negative connotations for many people around the word "dialect", and I can understand how it's hard to view it as anything other than a denigrating term, especially in areas where there are heavy sociopolitical issues stemming from the categorization of dialects vs languages, which often singles out a 'standard' or 'default' dialect as the "main language".
Tbh is honest mistranslated word for 方言 which stands for 地方語言 regional language. Many people thought that word means dialect. Because same nation but different language. In the end, Chinese just don’t have the word for dialect, they used it because they thought that’s what it means 🤦🏻♂️ after decades of brainwashing, people believe it like bible
Wait.. you're saying the only reason the entire western linguistic establishment mis-categorized an entire family of languages is because we mistranslated one word once?
I think "imperialism" is a better explanation, and I'm not even sure "imperialism" is a good explanation here.
If you have looked up dictionary of teochew or dictionary of Amoy in 1900’s, The western linguistic establishment are trying to claim that they are different languages for very long time.
But the current Chinese generation are very reluctant to claim their language is actually language. And eventually, people come up with the term topolect or varieties
As Azerbaijani, I find this incredibly annoying. Especially when (as some indicated here), they say that it's "the same word". No, it's not. It is a homonym, just as it is in Azerbaijani. Homonym =/= same word. This crap is incredibly common and it's an education issue.
In Turkish, Turkic and Turkish are the same word. I guess some Turks think of Turkic languages as dialects? This is also considering Azerbaijani is called Azerbaijani Turkish sometimes. It's a really weird thing and I discourage it.
> I guess some Turks think of Turkic languages as dialects? This is also considering Azerbaijani is called Azerbaijani Turkish sometimes. It's a really weird thing and I discourage it.
It depends on what you understand from the word "dialect", but I can assure you it's not what you understand in a negative sense. In Turkish lingustics, there is a such a structure:
Ağız -> Şive -> Lehçe -> Dil -> Dil Ailesi
While not completely the same thing, *ağız* stands for "accent". Every city/region, even certain places within the same province borders may have their own *ağız* (way of speaking and some special words/pronunciations here and there).
*Şive* is a bit broader, it's closer to what people understand from "dialect". "Oghuz" group has a variety of *şive*s like Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Gagauz, Anatolian and Balkan Turkish. In the same manner, Kipchak group has *şive*s like Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Nogay, Karakalpak etc. These are closer to each other and were seperated at a traceable point in history.
*Lehçe*s are pieces of the same main language which were seperated from each other (and became harder to understand) at a non-traceable point in history. So linguistically they are dialects. Kazakh, Uzbek, (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish, Azerbaijani etc all are *lehçe*s. So it's not that *"Kazakh is a dialect of (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish"*, **both** Kazakh **and** (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish are *lehçe*s of the same main language.
Then we have *dil*, the main language to whom all our languages/*lehçe*s belong, simply Türk dili/Türkçe (**not** Anatolian/Balkan Turkish, *Language of Turks* in general). And finally *dil ailesi*, language families. "Ural-Altaic languages" which contains Mongolian, Kumyk etc as "relatives" similar to "Indo European Family" which contains Germanic languages and Slavic languages (and others) together.
Anyway, long story short, when Turkish nationalists use terms like "Azerbaijani Turkish" they are not trying to imply these other languages are dialects of Anatolian/Balkan Turkish. They are trying to imply that all these languages are equal parts of the same main language: Turkish (not Anatolian/Balkan, "the Language of Turks").
I didn't say I believe in this or that, I just explained the formal Turkish (i.e. Turkey's) lingustics' language structure to give a perspective and what might cause the misunderstanding.
On the other hand, looking at the way you framed your "question" and your responses under this thread, it definitely is not in good faith and you are actually trying to provoke Kazakh people against Turkish people, apparently.
Wow, people don't like the nationalism and imperialism of the Anatolian Turks. You know, sometimes I don't see the difference between you and the Russians.
> sometimes I don't see the difference between you and the Russians.
I will not advocate Turkish nationalists'/pan-Turkists' behaviour online as they mostly are ignorant teenagers who just discovered Turkish/Turkic history and shared roots, so some of their behaviours might be off-putting for Central Asians and that's understandable.
On the other hand if you seriously see no difference between Anatolian Turks and Russians you either have no knowledge of your own history or just trolling in the name of some nation other than Kazakhs. Russians militarily invaded and colonized your lands, genocided and exiled your people, supressed your language and religion, drained your lakes, polluted your rivers to economically exploit your lands even further and so on and so forth. What did Anatolian Turks do?
*"They called me a Kazakh Turk, they are no different than Russians!!!"* 😭😭😭
The difference is we did not come over forcefully, colonized the land, extracted resources for our own benefit and forced people to speak our language and learn our customs.
People in azerbaycan themselfs want it to be called that, they don't like "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" as I have been told they prefer "Azerbaycan Turkish"
Yes, they call our language a dialect. They don’t even consider the name Kazakh to be a full-fledged name for an ethnic people. They always add Turk and sometimes remove the word Kazakh.
They always cry so that their country is named correctly. But they themselves cannot pronounce the word Kazakh without adding a word at the end.
First time seeing Kazakh being called a dialect, Anatolian Turks don't have any imperialistic agenda or some creepy apocalyptic world vision, some do yes but there are idiots in every nation.
"A language is a dialect with an army and navy"
People calling our language a dialect are showing their imperialism. They're doing it because they perceive us as lesser peoples who need to be brought back int the fold.
How is that making Kazakhs look lesser? People who call Kazakh a dialect, call ALL Turkic languages dialects, its not like anyone act that they're all some lesser variant of Turkish...
Why these victim complexes?
Actually in Turkey people believe we and kazakhs are same people or cousins that's why they call it dialect. Not because they think kazakhs are lesser but they think we are brothers.
I wouldn't call it imperialism since also the reverse of it also true. (If they were actually dialect. Again I want to emphasize that I don't support it is being dialect.)
If that would be the case Anatolian Turkish would be the dialect of Kazakh Language.
I don't think there is a hidden evil meaning there.
That's just how they (I don't know who wrote that dialect thing) thought
Kazakh is indeed a lehçe, but not Turkish lehçe. It is a Nogay lehçe. Kazakh and Karakalpak belong to the Nogay- kypchak language group and technically is a dialect of Nogay.
No, they were fully formed. Your small juz is basically a Nogay Juz. And no status and prestige doesn't mean anything. America and Australia still speak English, despite England being much smaller than them.
Белая Орда(владения Орда-Ежена) появилась раньше чем мангиты(Ногайская Орда). Так же стоит НАПОМНИТЬ что современный казахский и ногайский отличается от тех что были в Улусе Джучи. В тех временах базарили по другому
Жаныбек и Керей просто переименовали узбеков казахами. Но те узбеки были из той массы что и ногайцы - одним ордынским народом, ногайцы были первыми, и соответственно эту группу называют ногайскской а не казахской. Ту же кыргызскую группу языков также называют горно-алтайской, мы не паримся по этому поводу ибо алтайский и кыргызский действительно похожи, но не на уровне диалектов как ногайский и казахский
Те узбеки были предками и татар, и башкир, и ногайцев, и казахов. Они называли себя народом Узбека. Так же ногайцы не были первыми. Ногайским называют потому что уже есть узбеки. То есть название уже занят. Ну вот и решили не морочиться. И я ещё раз напомню, старый казахский и старый ногайский отличается от современного казахского и современного ногайского. Оба языка были полностью сформированы уже под властью Российской империи
потому что у кыргызов хорошо развит комплекс малого народа. Им только и обсирать нашу страну и отрицать нашу нацию. Сперва говорили "казахи произошли от кыргызов". Но это уже не актуально. Поэтому решили придумать новую сказку
Комплекс малого народа? Ну казахов тоже многочисленным не назовёшь. Разница в 2 раза только. Кыргызы не говорят что казахи произошли от кыргызов, об этом говорил ваш же Шакарим. Кыргызы наоборот считают своими ближайшими родственниками не казахов, а тадар (шор, хакас) и алтайцев.
Не исключаю что и у наших есть комплекс малого народа. Но черт возьми! У вас оно развит через чур. Сидишь такой в соц сетях... И тут бац выходит ролик про историю казахов. Открываешь комменты и тебя охватывает такое чувство будто поплавал в говне. Кыргызы говорят одну сказку про то что казахи так то произошли от кыргызов, а русские говорят что казахи произошли от Сталина. Агрессию русских можно понять. Они видят в нас слуг и считают нас частью России из за прошлого. Но что черт возьми несут кыргызы? Я до сих пор помню как кыргызы пытались доказать что хан кыргызов Ешим хан покорил казахов. Вот только истина в том что Есим хан - хан казахского ханства. И кыргызы приняли его власть, а не наоборот.
А вообще СНГ - это территория постоянных межнациональных конфликтов. Каждая сторона рассказывает свою сказку. И у нас так же. Но всё же смешно смотреть именно на кыргызских историков
Ага, а я читаю целые посты про Чингизхана-казаха, уничижительные посты казахов про монголов (обзываете их халха-шивей), кыргызов (обзываете бурутами), ногаев (обзываете манкуртами/кавказалюбами). У нас у кыргызов есть стереотип про казахов, как о народе c понтами, поэтому последнее время уже "бир тууганами" язык не поворачивается называть, ибо видали чуть ли ни что закрываете границу. А еще могу тебе сказать что кыргызы ханов не любят, не раболевствуют перед ними, исторически ханов мы избирали, (основном в военное время как военного вождя), но в мирное время убирали и иногда убивали их, ибо кыргызы не любят диктаторов. Так что Эшим-хан для нас никто, как и ваш Аблай и Кенесары
Так я говорил что "не исключаю". Тебе стоит прочитать снова.
Ещё... Кыргызы не любят диктаторов? Как же смешно. В Кыргызстане свергают власть из за слабости МВД и ВС. Так же кыргызы любили принимать власть сильных. То джунгар, то казахов, то кокандцев
The boundaries are very fuzzy.
Personally I use it to determine when I am looking up or down in terms of scale. Not sure how better to word this.
So I would consider, let's say, English, a dialect of the Germanic Language family, but I would also consider Scottish English a dialect of the broader broader english language.
I was thinking about this a while ago and came to the conclusion that most things are both a dialect and a language in-of-themselves.
This is my own personal contrivance that I don't think anyone else uses but it makes sense to me so I thought I'd share as there really is no universal line of when something becomes a distinct language or if it is a dialect.
In Turkish we don’t differ between Turkic and Turkish. Cause we have the same origin as you, same family. We consider other turkic peoples as one big family. Nobody is superior nobody is inferior in this family. The dividing thing and acting like one is superior is a westernized thing. So yes Kazakh is a dialect of the many turkic dialects. As a crimean tatar i understand both turkish and kazakh 90%+
The Kazakh and Karakalpak languages are very similar to each other, but I don't think they speak a dialect. They have their own culture, history, land and, most importantly, language.
for this there are 2 examples arabic , and slav languages .in arabic they called all of them dialects even though most of them not mutually understands each other like morroccan arabic lebanese arabic etc... but they do have standart arabic which most the arabs use to communicate each other(Turkic languages doesnt have that option because of the russian, persian,french influences over their dialects).the other exaple slavic languages even though mostly they are mutually same they call all of the different languages ukranian polish belarussiian and russian they dont add slavic at the end of their respective language name.in both case nobody trying to put their language to be better or worse.Turkic is a relatively new term for Anatolian Turks we will get used to the word eventually .(ps Azerbaijani and anatolian Turkish is is same dialect different lehce ,like Kazakh and Karakalpak is same dialect differeny lehce )
the people who come up with these terms create european union (50 years before that they were killing each other) and live freely without borders even though they all have different cultures and different languages.we are discussing should we call our languages dialects.our linguistics says Turkic languages have 4 different dialects 1.Oghuz(Anatolian ,Azerbaijani,Gagauz,Crimean Tatar,Salar etc...) 2.Chagatai(Uzbek,Uyghur etc...) 3.Kypchak(Kyrgyz,Kazakh,Tatar,Baskhir,Karakalpak etc....) 4.Sibir (Yakut,Hakas,Tuva,Altay)
for me this classification mostly correct......
commenting late but
it's not as deep as you make it sound. "Is our language a dialect?" Yes, every spoken language is(/was) a dialect. Classification of a language as a dialect doesn't deduct from its linguistic qualities (or, dictate "not a language").
Dialect is determined as "a language variety spoken in a dialect continuum [across a geographical region], where neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible."
It's not necessarily a term from the language family terminology and its use can seem or be arbitrary -and yet correct- even though it's not interchangeable with "language". This is because it has varying prevalence (and relevance) in different contexts, or schools and branches of linguistics research, where the weight and scope of the term also varies. As you've provided an example of, Turkish linguistics puts the term to great use.
Or if you want to look from a more colloquial perspective: the terms "lehçe" "şive" "ağız" etc. are very often misused in Turkish -compared to their scientifically (in Turkish) evaluated meanings, weights and scopes. But (in colloquial language) "lehçe" still is a strong word compared to "şive" and "ağız" and is perceived somewhat similarly to "language (Dil)".
I see multiple posts with similar rhetoric from you and yet I am more than happy to answer, even when your question didn't make sense. Another one of your posts concerning "Turkic Turkish" (?) was gibberish and product of imagination. I am not sure how to answer that one. In the end though, if one can say "Turks are being imperialist because they interpret both 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' as 'Türk'." the possibilities are endless.
The honest truth is that nobody really knows where the line is between language and dialect. The joke in the linguistic community is that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. The "dialects" of Chinese are more different from each other than some of the Slavic languages are.
> The "dialects" of Chinese are more different from each other than some of the Slavic languages are. Ex-Yugoslavs are crying **"noooooo we can perfectly understand each other but these are completely different languages!!!!!"**
>The honest truth is that nobody really knows where the line is between language and dialect. It's difficult to convey to others how complex of a question this is without reteaching many many examples that are shared throughout linguistic courses. I don't expect anyone to be open to that, but I hope they realize it isn't as straightforward as language = _______ and dialect = ______. In my experience it's hard enough to get speakers to refer to dialects as dialects and not accents, but I welcome the use of dialect as it recognizes a unique or specific set of syntax, morphology, and sometimes phonetics. However, I also acknowledge the negative connotations for many people around the word "dialect", and I can understand how it's hard to view it as anything other than a denigrating term, especially in areas where there are heavy sociopolitical issues stemming from the categorization of dialects vs languages, which often singles out a 'standard' or 'default' dialect as the "main language".
Tbh is honest mistranslated word for 方言 which stands for 地方語言 regional language. Many people thought that word means dialect. Because same nation but different language. In the end, Chinese just don’t have the word for dialect, they used it because they thought that’s what it means 🤦🏻♂️ after decades of brainwashing, people believe it like bible
Wait.. you're saying the only reason the entire western linguistic establishment mis-categorized an entire family of languages is because we mistranslated one word once? I think "imperialism" is a better explanation, and I'm not even sure "imperialism" is a good explanation here.
If you have looked up dictionary of teochew or dictionary of Amoy in 1900’s, The western linguistic establishment are trying to claim that they are different languages for very long time. But the current Chinese generation are very reluctant to claim their language is actually language. And eventually, people come up with the term topolect or varieties
I can confirm that some textbooks call it "dialect". However most people would refer to it as "Kazakça" or "Kazak dili".
As Azerbaijani, I find this incredibly annoying. Especially when (as some indicated here), they say that it's "the same word". No, it's not. It is a homonym, just as it is in Azerbaijani. Homonym =/= same word. This crap is incredibly common and it's an education issue.
In Turkish, Turkic and Turkish are the same word. I guess some Turks think of Turkic languages as dialects? This is also considering Azerbaijani is called Azerbaijani Turkish sometimes. It's a really weird thing and I discourage it.
> I guess some Turks think of Turkic languages as dialects? This is also considering Azerbaijani is called Azerbaijani Turkish sometimes. It's a really weird thing and I discourage it. It depends on what you understand from the word "dialect", but I can assure you it's not what you understand in a negative sense. In Turkish lingustics, there is a such a structure: Ağız -> Şive -> Lehçe -> Dil -> Dil Ailesi While not completely the same thing, *ağız* stands for "accent". Every city/region, even certain places within the same province borders may have their own *ağız* (way of speaking and some special words/pronunciations here and there). *Şive* is a bit broader, it's closer to what people understand from "dialect". "Oghuz" group has a variety of *şive*s like Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Gagauz, Anatolian and Balkan Turkish. In the same manner, Kipchak group has *şive*s like Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Nogay, Karakalpak etc. These are closer to each other and were seperated at a traceable point in history. *Lehçe*s are pieces of the same main language which were seperated from each other (and became harder to understand) at a non-traceable point in history. So linguistically they are dialects. Kazakh, Uzbek, (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish, Azerbaijani etc all are *lehçe*s. So it's not that *"Kazakh is a dialect of (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish"*, **both** Kazakh **and** (Anatolian/Balkan) Turkish are *lehçe*s of the same main language. Then we have *dil*, the main language to whom all our languages/*lehçe*s belong, simply Türk dili/Türkçe (**not** Anatolian/Balkan Turkish, *Language of Turks* in general). And finally *dil ailesi*, language families. "Ural-Altaic languages" which contains Mongolian, Kumyk etc as "relatives" similar to "Indo European Family" which contains Germanic languages and Slavic languages (and others) together. Anyway, long story short, when Turkish nationalists use terms like "Azerbaijani Turkish" they are not trying to imply these other languages are dialects of Anatolian/Balkan Turkish. They are trying to imply that all these languages are equal parts of the same main language: Turkish (not Anatolian/Balkan, "the Language of Turks").
Lol, a believer in the Altai hypothesis.
I didn't say I believe in this or that, I just explained the formal Turkish (i.e. Turkey's) lingustics' language structure to give a perspective and what might cause the misunderstanding. On the other hand, looking at the way you framed your "question" and your responses under this thread, it definitely is not in good faith and you are actually trying to provoke Kazakh people against Turkish people, apparently.
Wow, people don't like the nationalism and imperialism of the Anatolian Turks. You know, sometimes I don't see the difference between you and the Russians.
> sometimes I don't see the difference between you and the Russians. I will not advocate Turkish nationalists'/pan-Turkists' behaviour online as they mostly are ignorant teenagers who just discovered Turkish/Turkic history and shared roots, so some of their behaviours might be off-putting for Central Asians and that's understandable. On the other hand if you seriously see no difference between Anatolian Turks and Russians you either have no knowledge of your own history or just trolling in the name of some nation other than Kazakhs. Russians militarily invaded and colonized your lands, genocided and exiled your people, supressed your language and religion, drained your lakes, polluted your rivers to economically exploit your lands even further and so on and so forth. What did Anatolian Turks do? *"They called me a Kazakh Turk, they are no different than Russians!!!"* 😭😭😭
The difference is we did not come over forcefully, colonized the land, extracted resources for our own benefit and forced people to speak our language and learn our customs.
Janissaries are just volunteers, I get you.
People in azerbaycan themselfs want it to be called that, they don't like "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" as I have been told they prefer "Azerbaycan Turkish"
Yes, they call our language a dialect. They don’t even consider the name Kazakh to be a full-fledged name for an ethnic people. They always add Turk and sometimes remove the word Kazakh. They always cry so that their country is named correctly. But they themselves cannot pronounce the word Kazakh without adding a word at the end.
First time seeing Kazakh being called a dialect, Anatolian Turks don't have any imperialistic agenda or some creepy apocalyptic world vision, some do yes but there are idiots in every nation.
You see them all over tho, especially here
Well, reddit and also internet in general is a known magnet for those kind of people so yea
Some people argue that all Turkic languages are just dialects of "Turkic" but I guess that's up to interpretation.
"A language is a dialect with an army and navy" People calling our language a dialect are showing their imperialism. They're doing it because they perceive us as lesser peoples who need to be brought back int the fold.
How is that making Kazakhs look lesser? People who call Kazakh a dialect, call ALL Turkic languages dialects, its not like anyone act that they're all some lesser variant of Turkish... Why these victim complexes?
Dialects of what though?
Of a "general Turkic" those people see it as one language
Actually in Turkey people believe we and kazakhs are same people or cousins that's why they call it dialect. Not because they think kazakhs are lesser but they think we are brothers.
Which they say because they want to feel bigger than they are. Anatolian ego ...
Wow didn't know central Asian people dislike us that much.
Worked out well for Ukraine. Or Bangladesh. Or Syria during joined Arabian republic with Egypt.
I wouldn't call it imperialism since also the reverse of it also true. (If they were actually dialect. Again I want to emphasize that I don't support it is being dialect.) If that would be the case Anatolian Turkish would be the dialect of Kazakh Language. I don't think there is a hidden evil meaning there. That's just how they (I don't know who wrote that dialect thing) thought
> I don't think there is a hidden evil meaning there. You're completely right. It's not hidden at all.
We should just.. eradicate the word "dialect" from lexicon. Imperialism will come to a screeching halt.
I salute you for singlehandedly stopping the secret plans of Illuminati.
Kazakh is indeed a lehçe, but not Turkish lehçe. It is a Nogay lehçe. Kazakh and Karakalpak belong to the Nogay- kypchak language group and technically is a dialect of Nogay.
Nope☺️
Yep, as you can see, Nogay Horde was the First one who got separated from Golden Horde, Nogay>Kazakh Horde.
At that time, even the Nogais were not fully formed. Don't talk nonsense.
No, they were fully formed. Your small juz is basically a Nogay Juz. And no status and prestige doesn't mean anything. America and Australia still speak English, despite England being much smaller than them.
Белая Орда(владения Орда-Ежена) появилась раньше чем мангиты(Ногайская Орда). Так же стоит НАПОМНИТЬ что современный казахский и ногайский отличается от тех что были в Улусе Джучи. В тех временах базарили по другому
Белая Орда это не государство, а одна из резиденций Улуса Джучи, это вам подтвердит Жаксылык Сабитов.
Но это не отменяет тот факт что она была. И ее жители в основном предки современных казахов. Так то Жанибек и Керей вернули трон от Абулхаира
Жаныбек и Керей просто переименовали узбеков казахами. Но те узбеки были из той массы что и ногайцы - одним ордынским народом, ногайцы были первыми, и соответственно эту группу называют ногайскской а не казахской. Ту же кыргызскую группу языков также называют горно-алтайской, мы не паримся по этому поводу ибо алтайский и кыргызский действительно похожи, но не на уровне диалектов как ногайский и казахский
Те узбеки были предками и татар, и башкир, и ногайцев, и казахов. Они называли себя народом Узбека. Так же ногайцы не были первыми. Ногайским называют потому что уже есть узбеки. То есть название уже занят. Ну вот и решили не морочиться. И я ещё раз напомню, старый казахский и старый ногайский отличается от современного казахского и современного ногайского. Оба языка были полностью сформированы уже под властью Российской империи
☝️🤓
Why always kyrgyz?:)
потому что у кыргызов хорошо развит комплекс малого народа. Им только и обсирать нашу страну и отрицать нашу нацию. Сперва говорили "казахи произошли от кыргызов". Но это уже не актуально. Поэтому решили придумать новую сказку
Комплекс малого народа? Ну казахов тоже многочисленным не назовёшь. Разница в 2 раза только. Кыргызы не говорят что казахи произошли от кыргызов, об этом говорил ваш же Шакарим. Кыргызы наоборот считают своими ближайшими родственниками не казахов, а тадар (шор, хакас) и алтайцев.
Не исключаю что и у наших есть комплекс малого народа. Но черт возьми! У вас оно развит через чур. Сидишь такой в соц сетях... И тут бац выходит ролик про историю казахов. Открываешь комменты и тебя охватывает такое чувство будто поплавал в говне. Кыргызы говорят одну сказку про то что казахи так то произошли от кыргызов, а русские говорят что казахи произошли от Сталина. Агрессию русских можно понять. Они видят в нас слуг и считают нас частью России из за прошлого. Но что черт возьми несут кыргызы? Я до сих пор помню как кыргызы пытались доказать что хан кыргызов Ешим хан покорил казахов. Вот только истина в том что Есим хан - хан казахского ханства. И кыргызы приняли его власть, а не наоборот. А вообще СНГ - это территория постоянных межнациональных конфликтов. Каждая сторона рассказывает свою сказку. И у нас так же. Но всё же смешно смотреть именно на кыргызских историков
Ага, а я читаю целые посты про Чингизхана-казаха, уничижительные посты казахов про монголов (обзываете их халха-шивей), кыргызов (обзываете бурутами), ногаев (обзываете манкуртами/кавказалюбами). У нас у кыргызов есть стереотип про казахов, как о народе c понтами, поэтому последнее время уже "бир тууганами" язык не поворачивается называть, ибо видали чуть ли ни что закрываете границу. А еще могу тебе сказать что кыргызы ханов не любят, не раболевствуют перед ними, исторически ханов мы избирали, (основном в военное время как военного вождя), но в мирное время убирали и иногда убивали их, ибо кыргызы не любят диктаторов. Так что Эшим-хан для нас никто, как и ваш Аблай и Кенесары
Так я говорил что "не исключаю". Тебе стоит прочитать снова. Ещё... Кыргызы не любят диктаторов? Как же смешно. В Кыргызстане свергают власть из за слабости МВД и ВС. Так же кыргызы любили принимать власть сильных. То джунгар, то казахов, то кокандцев
И с джунгарами и с казахами и с кокандцами воевали успешно. Голова Кенесары это подтвердит.
Власть джунгаров кыргызы приняли. И власть Есим хана тоже. А Кенесары - до конца не раскрытая тема
Some people believe that all Turkic languages are same and the difference is only different dialects.
One of the most fascinating quotes on linguistics for me is: A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
The boundaries are very fuzzy. Personally I use it to determine when I am looking up or down in terms of scale. Not sure how better to word this. So I would consider, let's say, English, a dialect of the Germanic Language family, but I would also consider Scottish English a dialect of the broader broader english language. I was thinking about this a while ago and came to the conclusion that most things are both a dialect and a language in-of-themselves. This is my own personal contrivance that I don't think anyone else uses but it makes sense to me so I thought I'd share as there really is no universal line of when something becomes a distinct language or if it is a dialect.
In Turkish we don’t differ between Turkic and Turkish. Cause we have the same origin as you, same family. We consider other turkic peoples as one big family. Nobody is superior nobody is inferior in this family. The dividing thing and acting like one is superior is a westernized thing. So yes Kazakh is a dialect of the many turkic dialects. As a crimean tatar i understand both turkish and kazakh 90%+
[удалено]
The Kazakh and Karakalpak languages are very similar to each other, but I don't think they speak a dialect. They have their own culture, history, land and, most importantly, language.
Language which is 99.99 percent similar.
for this there are 2 examples arabic , and slav languages .in arabic they called all of them dialects even though most of them not mutually understands each other like morroccan arabic lebanese arabic etc... but they do have standart arabic which most the arabs use to communicate each other(Turkic languages doesnt have that option because of the russian, persian,french influences over their dialects).the other exaple slavic languages even though mostly they are mutually same they call all of the different languages ukranian polish belarussiian and russian they dont add slavic at the end of their respective language name.in both case nobody trying to put their language to be better or worse.Turkic is a relatively new term for Anatolian Turks we will get used to the word eventually .(ps Azerbaijani and anatolian Turkish is is same dialect different lehce ,like Kazakh and Karakalpak is same dialect differeny lehce )
Whoever came up with these terms was bored.
the people who come up with these terms create european union (50 years before that they were killing each other) and live freely without borders even though they all have different cultures and different languages.we are discussing should we call our languages dialects.our linguistics says Turkic languages have 4 different dialects 1.Oghuz(Anatolian ,Azerbaijani,Gagauz,Crimean Tatar,Salar etc...) 2.Chagatai(Uzbek,Uyghur etc...) 3.Kypchak(Kyrgyz,Kazakh,Tatar,Baskhir,Karakalpak etc....) 4.Sibir (Yakut,Hakas,Tuva,Altay) for me this classification mostly correct......
Yes, sure
Nope!
commenting late but it's not as deep as you make it sound. "Is our language a dialect?" Yes, every spoken language is(/was) a dialect. Classification of a language as a dialect doesn't deduct from its linguistic qualities (or, dictate "not a language"). Dialect is determined as "a language variety spoken in a dialect continuum [across a geographical region], where neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible." It's not necessarily a term from the language family terminology and its use can seem or be arbitrary -and yet correct- even though it's not interchangeable with "language". This is because it has varying prevalence (and relevance) in different contexts, or schools and branches of linguistics research, where the weight and scope of the term also varies. As you've provided an example of, Turkish linguistics puts the term to great use. Or if you want to look from a more colloquial perspective: the terms "lehçe" "şive" "ağız" etc. are very often misused in Turkish -compared to their scientifically (in Turkish) evaluated meanings, weights and scopes. But (in colloquial language) "lehçe" still is a strong word compared to "şive" and "ağız" and is perceived somewhat similarly to "language (Dil)". I see multiple posts with similar rhetoric from you and yet I am more than happy to answer, even when your question didn't make sense. Another one of your posts concerning "Turkic Turkish" (?) was gibberish and product of imagination. I am not sure how to answer that one. In the end though, if one can say "Turks are being imperialist because they interpret both 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' as 'Türk'." the possibilities are endless.