Talk:Khazar language

mistake

OKHQURÜM, "I read (this or it)" (Modern Turkish: OKURUM)

Modern Turkish is: OKUDUM not OKURUM

R may be an Oghur version of Oghuz D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.237 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dialect

Coon's studies compiled indicate the Khazar language a dialect of Jagatai

Questions

From what I've heard, when the Khazars converted to Judaism, they adopted Jewish Hebrew. (Not all varieties of Hebrew are Jewish. There is also Samaritan Hebrew.)

This brings up several questions:

Did Jewish Hebrew (or at least Jewish Hebrew as spoken by Khazars) absorb any Khazar words?

After the Khazars adopted Jewish Hebrew, was their Jewish Hebrew different that that of other Jews? (see above question)

IF Jewish Hebrew of any type absorbed any Khazar words, is there ANY way of knowing whether or not those words came from the Khazar language? In other words: could there be commonly known and used words in Jewish Hebrew that came from the Khazar language, without it being known they were originally Khazar words?

I suspect A LOT of people are wondering the same things.

Gringo300 01:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist but I have never heard of any scholar suggesting that Turkic or Khazar words appear in Hebrew. It is true that some Khazar documents from the post-conversion period are written in Hebrew. See Khazar Correspondence, Schechter Letter, Kievian Letter. The extent to which Hebrew words may have entered the Khazar language in everyday speach is impossible to determine, given how little we know about the language. However, it's interesting to note that the word for Saturday in the Kipchak language is "Shabbat Kun"; whether they got Shabbat from the Khazars is impossible to determine. --Briangotts 02:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to do research on Khazar language

So far, it has been incredibly frustrating...

Gringo300 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you won't find very much. Our knowledge of the Khazar language is frightfully limited. The best source I can recommend to you is Khazar Studies by Peter Golden. It should be available in a decent university or research library, possibly through interlibrary loan. Briangotts 00:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Khazar Language extinct?

If you cannot determine what language they spoke how can you say it is extinct? What makes you think that Khazars a Turkic people spoke an 'extinct' language? Why can't Khazars speak Turkic and believe that Moses is the Prophet of God? If they did not speak Turkish why would they name their kids with Turkish names? Please see http://www.khazaria.com site AverageTurkishJoe 20:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. Nobody is saying that the Khazar did not speak a Turkic language. In fact the article is quite clear that they DID speak Turkic. Nor is anyone denying that they named their kids with Turkic names or that they practiced Judaism. All of these things are true. But it's also true that the particular Turkic language spoken by them is not spoken any longer by any current group. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my point! How do we know it is not spoken any longer by any group? The "only written word in Khazarian Language" HWQWRWM mentined in the article is exactly the same in Modern Turkish (Okurum : I read). Karaims of Crimea claim a Khazar and Kipchak ancestry and speak Turkish (and not just a Turkic language.) One data point is not enough to refute or confirm a theory but there does not seem to be any evidence that Khazar Language is not spoken by any group anymore. One can claim that Karaims were in contact with Istanbul throught the history so their language might have been influenced by Turkish. If you are familiar with Codex Cumanicus which is the antology of the Kipchak language of that time there is a good chance that Khazar Language was the language in Codex Cumanicus and it is very much alive today. AverageTurkishJoe 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, we also can't say the language ISN'T extinct. There is no proof that any Turkic language being spoken today is the same one that the Khazars spoke. And no, you can't base it upon a single word (okurum). --Stacey Doljack Borsody 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, read the works of Peter Golden and other scholars. The word is the only word extant written in the original Khazar alphabet, not the only word. Scholarly consensus is that the language is quite different from the Cuman language and that it is now extinct and has been for some time. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Golden says: "Khazaria, for example, which as a genuine state had a need for literacy, has left us only documents in Hebrew, reflecting the Judaization of the ruling elements. Indeed, their language about which there are still many unanswered questions, is known, such as it is, almost exclusively from the titles and names of prominent Khazars recorded in the historical records of neighboring sedentary states." If there are new developments in this please include the references in the article.

(removed my earlier quote from Peter Golden)[[1]] AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the person in the first post is confusing the terms "Turkish" and "Turkic". I can't complain much, though, because I did too at one time. Gringo300 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I'm removing this article from the GA/self nom list because:

• No sections, implying that there is no clear-cut lead
• Article is too short, and comprehensiveness needs to be worked on
• Lack of inline citations (not a reason for removal, just a note)
• Image does not have copyright tag

AndyZ 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The image is a copy of a thousand-year old text. It is ineligible for copyright Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has been expanded somewhat but won't be any longer because there is not much more to say given the paucity of information on the subject. However, the article is of the utmost importance to both linguistics and Judaism. Best, Eklir (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Is Altaic disputed ?

If there exists a dispute, what is?. I shall wait for a while for any discussion, if no reliable information or source (scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles) given there, i'll remove the Altaic "(disputed)" statement. Furthermore, if there exist such a dispute, this should be done in the "Altaic Languages" section. e104421

I think there might be a misunderstanding. There is no dispute that Altaic is a language group. There is some dispute as to whether the khazar language was in fact Altaic. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Altaic theory has its controversies (can be read at Altaic Languages. Do you mean there is some dispute as to whether the Khazar language was Turkic or that Turkic languages are Altaic? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The main problem is related with the "(disputed)" tag, cause this leads misunderstanding. There exists Altaic Languages but there is going on discussion about Altaic thesis. This "(disputed)" tag causes the misunderstanding that "--- language's being Altaic is disputed". For this reason, i'm supporting to remove the "disputed" tag. The discussion should be done either in the Altaic Languages page or maybe better in the Altaic hypothesis page. We're stil discussing the issue. e104421 3 September 2006, 20:25 (UCT)

Since the time of this discussion, linguists have abandoned Altaic as a language group, even the linguist that first proposed it. FYI. 50.111.46.18 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Khazarian Rovas script

Based on the researches carried out in Hungary in the last decades, the Hungarian science obtained some interesting results. Since most of the publications in Hungarian, these results are not well-known. I recommend to visit the following pages:

• Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription - this is the relic of a Khazarian leader, whose religion was Karaite,
• Khazarian Rovas script - this is a comprehensive overview of the Khazarian Rovas script, albeit it is very short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovasscript (talk • contribs) 13:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does it even mean to suggest that "the Khazar language was Common Turkic, not Ogur"? The Khazar language was spoken in the 10th century. Surely nobody is suggesting it is identical with Proto-Turkic? As the Common Turkic article points out, "Southwestern Common Turkic" is just another term for Oghuz.

I am in no position to judge whether the publication by Vékony (2004) is worthless, or alternatively just the people reporting the alleged content of that publication, but something is going terribly wrong here. Before we go into the question whether the gist of Vékony is reported accurately, we need to know if Nap Kiad is an academic publisher, viz. if we are looking at an academic reference here. If this is just the normal hobbyist rune-cruft, we can safely ignore it. If it is academic, we need to figure out what the hell Vékony actually tried to say. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Vékony is an academic indeed (he was an archaeologist officially, but well read in history and also in historical linguistics). However, the cited 2004 book is a postumous edition of his unpublished manuscripts he was working on. The quality of the *editorial* work is miserable, the contents and Vékony's research are inspiring though. Therefore I'd remove the "dubious" tag from the *citation* itself. Conserning the "Khazarian" script, however, there is no widely accepted reading. Both Russian scientists did some readings (Kyzlasov), and also Vékony has kontributed, but I would not call the reading definitive or solved, and would consider the script as undeciphered, by large. Szabi (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Khazar language/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria recommends the WikiProject Psychology Importance Scale as a model. According to that project, an article rated as High importance "contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it." In contrast, most experts in linguistics will not be familiar with Khazar language, and it cannot be found in most academic studies of linguistics. I have just looked at the indexes of three popular intro textbooks (Fromkin and Rodman 1993, O'Grady et al. 2001, Fasold and Connor-Linton 2006) and none of them mention Khazar. I assert that Khazar language is peripheral but still notable within the field of linguistics. In other words, it is of LOW importance. If others believe that "Many [linguists] are knowledgeable of the topic. Published research from a variety of sources exists for the subject," then it could be of MID importance, but not HIGH. Cnilep (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Note, these comments apply only to the WikiProject Linguistics, not to WikiProject Judaism. Cnilep (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What are "Europoid somatic elements"?

Strange and perhaps even somewhat creepy sentence: "According to anthropological data, it was ruled by Inner Asian Mongoloid (with some Europoid somatic elements) core tribes."--98.111.164.239 (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)