Talk:Cariye

Proposed merger of Jarya into Cariye

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These two articles are about the same term. The more literal transliteration of the Arabic word basis for both is "Jariya", and Cariye has clearly emerged as a term in English through the misreading of the Turkish language sources in Latin script, where the "C" is pronounced "J", like in the Turkish "Camii" (word for mosque), which is pronounced Jamii. Anyway, of the two, Cariye is the more used term, see: Google book results for Cariye and Jarya, as well as, on the face of it, having been more developed as an article. Cariye, as the term attributed to Ottoman society, also represents the latest well-known institutionalised form of the practice, while the Jarya article is more etymology/fragments of early history - and would be useful as such in the Cariye article. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Opose The article describes a difference between the term, not just a language difference: both of them were a term for female slaves, but Jarya were a specially trained slave girl, not just any slave girl, while Cariye were a term for slave girls in general, not specially trained slave girls. In short, one stands for a particular category within slave girls, the other just stands for slave girls in general. They may also be separated by culture (Arabic and Turkish) and time period. I have no doubt that there is a language issue in this, which is valied to bring up, but an article about a particular category of slaves should not be merge in to an article about slaves as such. They should continue to be separate articles. However, I agree that information about the Jaryas would be usefull within this article. That can be done without a merge. --Aciram (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: I think you've raised some important points, but I think there are reasons to suspect that the jarya article is not currently quite correct. There are no cited page numbers, so it is hard to verify any of its statements, but if you look under terminology on the page for qiyan, you will see it specifically state that qiyan are the artistically trained slaves and that jarya is the more general term for female slaves. After the opening, largely uncited statements in the lead intro of jarya, the second paragraph in history also states: "They were acquired from the slave market or captured as war booty." This is almost identical to the beginning of the main body of the article on Cariye, which states: "The general meaning of the term cariye was a woman enslaved during warfare." If we assume for the sake of argument that the qiyan article is accurate, and that qiyan are a subset of jarya, then it makes sense that a general article about jarya might also mention that some were artistically trained, and the cariye article incidentally makes this same point also--albeit much more briefly--when it notes: "They were trained in the discipline of the palace harem, and in the accomplishments for which they had talent." Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, if "Jariya/Cariye" is the term for a female slave captures in warfare, presumably there is also a more generic term for female slaves, including those that were born into servitude from enslaved mothers: anybody know what it is? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Source for the claim that "cariye" derived from "jariya": Stephan Conermann, Gül Şen (ed.). Slaves and Slave Agency in the Ottoman Empire. p. 390. There are only very few mentions of traditional "slave terms" such as cariye (from Ar. jariya, literally "female servant," "concubine")... VR _talk 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, although it really is more explicit than that. It says on the Cariye page that the Arabic is جارية, which if you can read Arabic is unambigously "Jariya", and if you know how to pronounce Turkish, that's also exactly how you say "Cariye"‎. It's really just two different forms of transliteration in the Latin alphabet, though the Turkish pluralisation could well be different from the Arabic one. However, as Aciram notes, it could conceivably be exactly the same spoken term, but still have a culturally distinct meaning. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced either way. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  As has been noted elsewhere, all of these are fluid terms; different scholars will give slightly different definitions. I think the focus here shouldn't as much be the term but the concept. If the topic here is "concubines in the Ottoman Empire" then that is definitely a worthy topic for its own article.VR _talk 19:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: if this article is meant to cover slave women in the Ottoman empire there is also Slavery in the Ottoman Empire.VR _talk 04:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Incidentally, Wiktionary has already got this obvious etymology nailed down: Definition: Cariye Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Btw, there's a similar discussion happening here where it is argued that Ulucami is just the Turkish word for a Congregational mosque.VR _talk 20:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ottoman Turkish to modern Turkish etymology

I perhaps should have also mentioned that Ottoman Turkish was written in the Arabic alphabet, so during the Ottoman period there was no written or spoken difference between the terms Cariye and Jarya - they were both written as "جارية" and pronounced in the same way: "Jariya" - emphasis on the first "A". The differences we now see here in the Latin script pertain to the linguistic choices of Ataturk when he transliterated Arabic-scripted Ottoman Turkish into Latin-scripted modern Turkish. The letter "J" was used for the often ignored consonant "zh", which is the sound of the "s" in "pleasure". It is also a common sound in French, which modern Turkish derived a lot of its words from. The letter "C" was then drafted as the signage for the "j" sound, since, quite rightly, no alphabet in fact needs both "C" and "K" to make the same sounds. In this sense, the Turkish Latin alphabet is quite visionary and far more effectively phonetic than the English version - alas with so many forward thinking ideas, it was ahead of its time, and the rest of the English-speaking world remained unmoved by its innovations. The end result is simply most of the world mispronouncing most Turkish words most of the time. (@Whiteguru: since you enjoyed the previous exposition.) Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Enslaved women did not started with Turks. Especially not since the existing of the Ottomans.

"They are particularly known in history from the era..."

From the beginning of humanity.

You give the signal with this text that it all started with Ottoman Turks. And never before on this earth. That's your style of writing.

This is a very insulting and unknowledged and stigmatized writing about only the Turkic side from the general word, 'Enslaved women'.

This happens in every war with all kind of folks. Not only in the subject what you are writing, a limited and selective view of only the Turkisch name of the word 'Enslaved women'. Or war women. While it's a general thing, the name that's given for women who suffer on this. 89.205.131.138 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)