Talk:Latin alphabet in Turkish countries

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have cancelled the proposal of merge "latin alphabet in turkish countries" with "turkish alphabet", because it is illogical. Turkish alphabet deals with other alphabets, like arab, persian and cyrillic. I plan to write voices on each of those alphabets, like it can be found in other wikipedias. Not only that, but turkish alphabet deals even with the altaic alphabet and latin alphabet has nothing to do with the altaic issue. Cheers.--LM (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is illogical. You yourself wrote "The turkish alphabet, based on latin capital and lower case letters..." and "...of the English alphabet do not occur in the Turkish latin alphabet" The Altaic language family includes multiple completely different alphabets (including both Korean and Japanese) so I can not see how that has anything to do with the subject at all.
The only differences between the letter lists on this article and the Turkish alphabet article is that you misspelled 'letters' ("Latters") under capitals and capitalised it in both lists (not a propper noun - should not be capitalized). Other than that, it is a direct copy/paste down to the formatting of the table.
Also, an alphabet can not be written in another alphabet. A language can, but not an alphabet. The Turkish language can be written using the Turkish alphabet (most common) or it can be written using the Cyrillic, Arabic or Persian alphabets. An alphabet is just a collection of letters, it can not be written as it is the writing itself. Writing using the Turkish alphabet can be translated into Arabic, but at that point it is no longer using the Turkish alphabet even though the language is still Turkish. -- Creol(talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe there it is some confusion here. May be Creol confuses turkish alphabet with alphabet of Turkey. This indeed was the case with the "uniform turkish alphabet" used in Soviet Union before WWII in all the turkish countries of central soviet Asia (and that was based on Ataturk's latin alphabet). But after the communism fall, the new latin alphabets proposed and used in the newly independent turkish republics of Asia (and that are -of course- not related to Turkey) have some differences between themselves. Put simply: the latin alphabet in Kazakhstan is different from the latin alphabet in Turkey, as can be seen in the added data I have posted in the voice. The Qazaqsa has 38 letters (and some different rules), while the latin alphabet in Turkey has 29. And there are other differences in the latin alphabet in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc... That is why I believe it is illogical the proposed merge.
Also, there are some turkish languages in Siberia and Russia that use the altaic alphabet, but mixed with some letters of the latin alphabet of Turkey. It is illogical to merge their alphabet with the alphabet of Turkey. It is a bit like merge the voice "alphabet" with "cyrillic alphabet" or "latin alphabet", don't you believe? Cheers. --LM (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)