Talk:List of English words of Turkic origin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

Untitled[edit]

afshar , aga , aibash??? all those words we use in English are Turkic? whoa! what a delightful surprise! LOL, seriously, this page is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.229.106 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another list at answers.com <- Why does this list claim to be from Wikipedia, but still contain entries that are not and never have been in the WP article? Take for example chock-a-block.

The List[edit]

The list is overexaggerated. Many of the words here were never part of the standard English. They may have beenused for while in some circles, but even then most of the time appearently this was in reference to a Turkish object or type of behaviour. So, as many readers have commented, a native English speaker may only recognize 5 percent of the words in this list.
Second, some of the etymologies are too long stretched. For example, there is no record in literature that shows that the name of the card game bridge is derived from a Turkish word. It is a distinctly western European game and playing cards was never a widespread practice in Turkey before the 20th century.
Third the list gives misleading impressions about the origins of the words. Although I would not object to Efendi being classified as Turkish word, as its meaning and form has changed considerably from the original "Authentos", duduk is definitely not a Turkish word but the name of an Armenian folk instrument. Although the word is adopted in Turkish, its meaning has changed to whistle as in "referee's whistle", and it might have passed to western languages (doubtful), still the form of the word is true to its origin and there can be no justification to call it a Turkish word. 75.110.69.120 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anon,
All of the words were found in online English dictionaries and all of them are referenced.
Chapultepec 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Turqoise is Turkish? Why that's very odd, I certainly didn't expect a Turkish word to be borrowed by French only to be borrowed back into Turkish, in the French form. Who would've guessed? Anyhow, Google's proving a little problematic and I'm feeling lazy so care to cite sources, hmm?

Oh, and, Dictionary.com says it's from Old French pierre turqueise, meaning Turkish Stone. Ha ha, silly Dictionary.com!

Ar-Pharazôn 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously turquoise is Turkish if it comes from the root word for Turkish - as you explained yourself. For my additions, I leave a source [1] here. 82.145.231.189 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys sure that these these words, or atleast most of them, are in the English language? I was searching them and a lot did not even have matches here: [2]. If you do not cite your sources, I may have to put this article up for deletion, as it seems to be origional research, which breaks the rules of NOR.Khosrow II 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iwant to thank user 85.99.175.4 for attempting to reference the words.Khosrow II 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effendi[edit]

Please :), All dictionaries say it is Turkish from Greek root. All those useless links were referring to books written in Turkish, but no mention of the root of the word.Heja Helweda 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we create a separate section called "sometimes considered of Turkic origin"? That way we can put words that people aren't 100% sure on. —Khoikhoi 18:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the User said he is going to try to find sources that show the etymology. If he cant, than the word cannot be considered Turkic at all. The problem is that the User cannot find sources to back up his claim.Khosrow II 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English words?[edit]

Are these English words? Correct me if I'm wrong, only a few in this list are, and the rest are English transliterations of Turkish words. --Inahet 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears in an English dictionary, it's probably an English word. Nohat 08:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Inahet. They don't look English to me! --Auximines 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you give some examples please? So, we could look further in detail. --Chapultepec 21:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm a native English speaker learning Turkish. I have never heard any of the words under "A" used in English. Perhaps they might use the words to describe Turkey, but I'd hardly call them English in a true sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.255.9 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayram has Iranic roots[edit]

The turkish word for festival comes originally from Sogdian (an extinct Iranian language) BaghaRam. "Bagha" means god in old persian and other iranian languages as attested in Bistun inscription from Achemenid times (also found in the name of Baghdad, littery: Given by God". Ram comes from anold Iranic root meaning "dance" or "festival". This word is still used in persian: "Ram" is the present tense of the verb "ramidan" from which "ramesh" and "rameshgar" meaning "dancer) also come. Therefore the word "Bayram" basically means "the festival for god" or "dancing for god".

Arash the Bowman 12:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The words connected with Bag/Bay are Indo-European. [3] A few spiritual elements were borrowed from the Indo-Iranian speech community: notably LCS *bogu' 'god' and *bogatu' 'rich' correspond to Avestan baga 'god', Sanskrit bhagas 'distributor' and bhagavant- 'honorable', and Phrygian (Zeus) Bagaios 'lord'.[4] Perhaps a mention of this fact should be made? --alidoostzadeh 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the words beginning with bay doesn't have to be of Iranian or Indo-European origin. There are a lot of other language families in the world and the words beginning with bay shouldn't be under Indo-Europeans' monopoly. They can be of any origin in fact.
Bay/Baik/Beg..entered from Soghdina to Turkish.. You can look in any turkic etymology book like clauson. --alidoostzadeh 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"A rather popular theory of Iranian origin is also excluded: the only acceptable etymology of Pers. bajram is < Turkic"
Starling - Turkic Etymology - Bajram
Chapultepec 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starling - Turkic Etymology - Baj
Chapultepec 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Baj, but the words Beg. Like the words Bay, Beg,Baik.. ..reliable sources say they are Indo-European [ [5] ]--alidoostzadeh 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baj → Bay
Bajram → Bayram , the letter 'j' gives the sound 'y', this is the transliteration.
Chapultepec 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what your source say.. it considers the word Bayram as a separate formation all together not related to bay. Are you sure the j here is actually equivaent to g? As far as I know bayram comes from ba*dh*ram , from middle iranian. But I guess there could be various sources. --alidoostzadeh 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read the text carefully, you can see that in Proto-Turkic the word is bajram. Also in Siberian Turks' languages like Khakassian and Shor the word is again bajram or pajram. And in the text beneath it rejects the Russian and Iranian theories and says that, "A rather popular theory of Iranian origin is also excluded: the only acceptable etymology of Pers. bajram is < Turkic". And it separates the word as bay-ra and bay-ga. And I'm quite sure the letter 'j' is the transliteration of 'y'. If you look at the other pronunciations, for example Turkish pronunciation, you can see that the word there is also bajram.
In the baj, article, it gives the Proto-Turkic word for it, namely "Baj". If you look at the meaning and the counterparts in the other Turkic languages, you can clearly see that it's bay, just like in the bayram article. And even the remotest Turkic peoples like Yakuts, Dolgans, Tuvans etc. use the same word. So, it proves that this is certainly a Turkic word.
Chapultepec 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt it since it is Slavic, Greek, Sanskrit and Avesta [[6]]. Also your source says the popular theory is Iranian.. that is it is the most relavent theory. Either way not a big deal, but perhaps it should be mentioned that some sources say indo-european originally..--alidoostzadeh 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is also a Russian theory that is popular as well. But both of the popular theories are now rejected. The only acceptable theory is the Turkic one for now. This is what the source says. And I have more reliable sources that say these words are Turkic. And some of these are added in the main page as references. The evidence is quite enough.
Merriam-Webster Unabridged - Bairam
Merriam-Webster Unabridged - Beg
Chapultepec 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are not rejected, since my source on etymology is newer than yours.. Also Merriam-webster is a big dictionary and can have lots of mistake whereas a specialized source that discusses the origin of force is less likely to make a mistake. Indeed Harold Baily was well known linguist of his era.. Also I can mention Encyclopedia Britannica 2006: The original vocabulary of general terms common to Baltic and Slavic is still retained in most of the Slavic languages. In prehistoric times Proto-Slavic borrowed a number of important social and religious terms from Iranian (e.g., bogu ‘god,' miru ‘peace'). [7]. --alidoostzadeh 12:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source, namely Starling, cites that "A rather popular theory of Iranian origin is also excluded: the only acceptable etymology of Pers. bajram is < Turkic". This is quite certain, without doubt. They also cite that the Russian hypothesis is also unlikely. Since they are concentrated in linguistic and etymological works, they are very authoritative in this topic.
And there are lots of sources giving the etymology of the words as Turkic, along with Merriam-Webster. So, Merriam-Webster and Starling are not the only sources hereof.
Additionally, borrowings between Iranian and Proto-Slavic languages are out of our point since we deal with the Turkic words.
Chapultepec 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going back and forth..We have Bagaios in Greek, Bogu in Slavic, Baga in Old Persian and Avesta and Bhaga in Sanskrit and Beg on the other hand in turkish. Perhaps both words developed separately and the similarity is coincidence.. at the same time there is theory that Turkishg ot it from Iranian and if your source does not mention why that popular theory is not acceptable, then I think it should be mentioned as (one theory is that Beg is from Soghdian... Since it is in quite amount of sources. --alidoostzadeh 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there can be similar words in different language families. The phonemes the humans use are not endless and there are lots of coincidences. Bay, Baig, Bey, Beg are all the variants of the same word and this is a Proto-Turkic word, just like Bayram. And these words are used even by the remotest Turks, even by Yakuts. This is what Starling definitely shows and proves. Without doubt!
For Bayram entry, Starling in fact shows why the Iranian theory is not acceptable. It stems from the root word bay, and becomes bay-ra and bay-ga taking the relevant suffixes. And this word is used even in the remotest parts of Turkic lands, including Khakass, Shor and Oyrat as well as the Proto-Turkic language. That's why the other theories can not be acceptable.
My username, namely Chapultepec, is a district in Mexico City. And in the Aztecs' language, namely Nahuatl, chapultepec means "grasshopper hill". Chapul for "grasshopper" and tepec for "hill". So, in Nahuatl, the word for hill is "Tepec", and in the Turkic languages the word for hill is "Tepe". Could you see the affinity? So, shall we claim that there had been borrowings between Nahuatl and the Turkic languages? No, this is just a coincidence. This is that easy.
Chapultepec 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kahvane[edit]

Kahvaneh is made up of two words, kahveh which is the turkified version of the Arabic word for Coffee, which is "qahwah", and the word hane. Now I dont believe that haneh is a turkic word, it probably comes from the old Persian "VAHANAM" meaning house. For example, the word Divan is also a persian word meaning a "house of documentation" literaly.Khosrow II 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have two sources showing the etymology of the word as Turkish, one Merriam-Webster Unabridged, the other is Dictionary.com. So, the sources are certain. You can see the second one for free. But Merriam-Webster is for subscribers. If you want, I can send you a snapshot of the article in M-W.
As for the word, this one is specific to Turkish, they formed a new word taking the root word kahve. So, this word belongs to Turkish rather than Arabic. This is specific to them, not to the Arabs. In fact, the word gahwa is not even an Arabic word in origin, but this not our point for the moment.
--Chapultepec 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the url for M-W article. You can see it. I will have to delete it in a couple days not to violate the rules.
http://community.webshots.com/photo/2397394090047668905yceucj
--Chapultepec 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok.Khosrow II 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split up the List?[edit]

As we all know, this is a list of compiled words from all the different Turkic langauges. How about we make a section for each, and distinguish them from one another? Or are there enough words for each of them to get their own article like the Persian words article? If not, then I suggest we split up the list into: Turkish, kazakh, Uzbek, etc... or we can lable them along side the word which dialect they come from.Khosrow II 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the words originate from Turkish, I think no need to split the page. Two words for Kazakh, three words for Kirghiz, this is useless. As for labeling, there are already labels showing from which dialect or language the word comes from. If you mean to split into sections, this will be hard, because there are many words of which the origins are uncertain; from kazakh or kirghiz, or from tatar or crimean tatar, some of the words were categorized under Turkic since it is not known from which dialect the word comes form. So, this way is better.
Chapultepec 03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That makes sense.Khosrow II 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good job[edit]

I would like to say good job to the person that edited the list here.. there is one or two words I dispute its origin, but ultimately etymology has a slight guesswork involved as well. I am using the same source now for Persian words and it seems a quite noticeable amount of them entered via Ottoman Turkish to European languages. --alidoostzadeh 08:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good job. There were some words put in twice (Agha and Qajar), but I fixed that. Keep up the good work.

Turk[edit]

Doesnt the word Turk come from Chinese?Khosrow II 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster Online - Turk
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - Turk
Chapultepec 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know your sources, but I was under the impression that the Chinese were the first to use the term Turk.Khosrow II 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, and of course they got the word form the Turks.
Chapultepec 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but as far as I know, the Chinese were the first to even use the term, and then the term was adopted by the Persians and Arabs.Khosrow II 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the list of who first used the words in their written materials. That's quite probable that the Chinese used the word the first time in their literature since the Turks did not have any writing system at those times. But that does not make the word Chinese. The word is Turkic.
Chapultepec 16:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The different variations[edit]

I dont know why you insist on having the same word in the list more than once. You even mention the different variations after the word Aga and Qajar. So why do you want to have the same words in their more than once? To make the list look longer?Khosrow II 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words Aga and Agha are the same word. The name Kajar and Qajar are the same name. These just have different spellings. Your Wiki links also go the the same places. You also include these different variations in the etymology of Aga and Qajar.Khosrow II 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In etymological dictionaries, different forms are always displayed since they are physically different words, even if they point to the same title.
Chapultepec 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but this is "list of english words of turkic origin". Why do you want to have the same word more than once. I dont even know why your arguing this.Khosrow II 16:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could not clearly explain what I meant. Different forms are physically different words even if they point to the same title. And in the etymological dictionaries different forms are always displayed. That is, aga and agha are not the same words even if they point to the same title.
Chapultepec 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't write back, I will consider that we are agreed...
Chapultepec 16:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we dont agree. So your saying that if we have the word Encyclopaedia, which can also be spelled Encycolopedia, we should have both of those words in the dictionary giving them their own sections? That makes no sense at all. I could go into the Persian words section and put Mullah, Mollah, Mola, Mula, etc... but no, because only one of those is necessary.Khosrow II 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanna give all the words of Turkic origin (or others) we have to add those forms as well. Because people can encounter with other variations of these words and they can be confused. So, just to compromise I will add the other variations beside the main entries...
Chapultepec 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have already givin those forms. Just say this: Qajar, also Kajar... Aga, also Agha.... Havent you thought of that?Khosrow II 17:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I thought, but when a user comes in and looks for the word Kajar in the "K" section, he won't be able to find it for the moment. But beforehand he could be able to find, because there was an entry "Kajar" in the "K" section.
Chapultepec 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry about that. No English speaker would type in Kajar. The term is Qajar.Khosrow II 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact they can type. For example, Merriam-Webster takes the word as "Kajar". A curious user can come in and look for the item "Kajar", that's quite possible. But, for the moment, he can't see the word "Kajar" since it is beside the entry "Qajar". Beforehand he would be able to see that since it was in the section "K". That's what I wanted to explain for ages.
Chapultepec 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ctrl F does amazing things. Dont worry about it, its not a big deal. Im sure no one is going to come here to look for the word Kajar. If anything, they'll run into it on accident.Khosrow II 17:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we think like the way you do, then it means that we're struggling in vain. We should write the articles as exact as possible. And the article before the changes was much more sound and correct. Users were able to see all the different forms in their exact places. Now they can't.
Never mind !
Chapultepec 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was redundant. Redundancy is a bad thing, not a good thing, especially for an encyclopaedia. Have you ever picked up a dictionary? How many times do they have the word Mullah in there? Once.Khosrow II 19:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the different forms are required. Not redundant. They give the chance to the users to find different variations in their exact places. But for the moment this is unfortunately vice versa.
As per my ever picking up a dictionary, I studied Turkish philology. I know how an etymological dictionary should look like.
If you open up a dictionary containing these words you can see that different variations are added as different entries. For example, Agha: see AGA. or Kajar: see QAJAR. This is a very simple rule.
So, never mind !
Chapultepec 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is now is fine and more than adequate. Anyone scrolling down the list will see both.Khosrow II 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, what you said is nearly impossible. Anyone who is unaware of other different variations will simply overlook the other variation within lots of words. This way in fact is not fine. The best way was the previous one who allowed the users see all the different forms in their respective places.
Chapultepec 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open the list of Persian words in English[edit]

Open the list of Persian words and you will find words which Adam and Eve spoke, mentioned as Persian. Then compare with the Turkic words and you'll find them again, but this time as Turkic. There is a lot of enthusiasm, but little reliability in these articles. Plus, if we add Arabic things will get really complicated. 91.92.176.184 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to provide reliability, every item in this list is well referenced.
Chapultepec 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ne haber arakdasim nasilsin hersey yolundadir keindine iyi bak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.96.205 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Turkish origin: O[edit]

I am not sure about "oda=room", because it is certainly used in modern Arabic speech (Egypt) and may derive its current meaning from the Arabic word translated in Wehr's dictionary as "refuge". Uthman is without any doubt an Arab name, e.g. the third caliph. (Pamour (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Brother! let me acknowledge about this subject . the `ODA` from old ottoman and azerbaijani `OTAGH` if u remember in old ottomans use this word in the meaning of `TENT`. also in Kazakh ORUN is PLACE. maybe this from there what u say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.61.23 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turquoise[edit]

What is "Turquoise" doing here? it is obviously a French word, as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turquoise> corroborates... just because it has "Turq" inside of it doesn't mean it is Turkic. that would be the same as saying that "Greek" is a Greek word because it has "Greek" inside of it - no, it's an English word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.146.166 (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and the article already mentions that it is an Anglo-French word, nevertheless the term Turk is ultimately of Turkic origin.[8] --Chapultepec (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North folks from Central Asia[edit]

if you like really central asian root of english, look at the some roots, but pls note that i lived there (turkey, kazakhstan, azerbaijan) many years. KING from KAGAN, TOWER from TAU (mountain in Turkic Langs), GO/COME from KEL(GEL) /KIT(GIT), MILK from MILCH(german) from MOLOKO(russian) from MAL-AKI(Turkic white of cow), AND A LOT OF WORDS IN ENGLISH BEGINING with ``W``, IN TURKIC LANGUAGES WITH ``Y`` for example, WAY-YOL, WASH-YIKA, WOOL-YUN, WRITE-YAZ, WIND-YEL, WORLD-YER, WRONG-YANLIS etc. I guess English lang composes 2 different roots. First from Latin-Grek-Arabian-Indian (from south way) and other North Europe, Slavian Regions, Urals, Central Asia (from north way). The etymological researche can not not be done on the table only. It must have lot trips around world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.61.23 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i forgot important one. Verb `BE` :). Let s look how comes from there? In central asian turkic langs i.e in Kazakh lang BOL in russian BYT` in english BE, not interesting? in modern turkish this word is `OL` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.61.23 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

beshmet (clothing)[edit]

or бешмет in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.233.110 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC) and... Altyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.233.110 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of English words of Turkic origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Turkic_origin&oldid=1208232901"