Wiktionary talk:About Turkish

Pronunciation

Some info relevant to eventually standardizing notation of pronunciation: Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/July#Turkish_pronunciation_inconsistencies. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Declensions of the Languages' Names

It seems all the language names in Turkish were made by the robot. There are the same example sentences. The language names aren't declined in plural forms in Turkish unless they are adjectives that mean "written/spoken in ...".

see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Türkçe https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/İngilizce https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fince https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/İspanyolca etc.

I offer that all the example sentences in these language names must be removed and the plural declensions as well. I hope the admins of the highest ranks will take my effort seriously. The wrong declensions damage the reliability of Wiktionary. Belirsizkahve (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Which verb forms to delete?

@Lambiam, İtidal, MhmtÖ: I've started writing the section WT:ATR#Inflected_forms_of_verbs in accordance with the RFD outcomes. What else should be added? I now use AWB in order to better get control over Sae's mess in Turkish entries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

For verbs, as for nouns, when a form has a not fully predictable lexical aspect, or is unpredictably homographic, it should be included, so some of the text at Inflected forms of nouns should be promoted to get a more general status. A nice example of a homograph, also as a verb form, is çıkar. It may be better to use just Noun forms and Verb forms in the section headings, since not all grammarians consider the suffixation ye- → yeme- an inflection. Next to verbs ending on negating -mAmAk I’d also like to exclude the potential -(y)Abilmek and its negation -(y)AmAmAk. Since no such potentials are currently included (with one exception: gözlenebilmek), this has no immediate impact, but it sets up a defence line against future over-eager editors. BTW, gözlemlenebilir is IMO includible, not as a verb form, but as an adjective, as in Gözlemlenebilir evren.  --Lambiam 20:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Good point. I'll run gözlenebilmek through RFD just so that there's a reached consensus that I can point to when I speedy such forms in the future. While -Abilmek and -AmAmAk should be excluded, I think -Avermek and the other more obscure converb constructions should be included because, unlike the potential forms, they cannot be applied to any verb at will as far as I know.

AFAIK most (all?) aorists can be used attributively, so I guess the inclusion of aorist forms is okay? If so, I'll clean them up with AWB because, as we know, Sae did some really funky "negative of negative infinitive" shenanigans, especially in verb forms. For infinitives I already did that cleanup, see diff and diff. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Aorist forms are also unpredictable, given the stem: ol-ur but dol-ar. And there is the -A/Ir versus -mAz thing. I clean these “form of ...mAmAk” entries up as I run into them, but if your AWB-fu can help us get rid of them, it will be a good riddance.  --Lambiam 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I've created Module:tr-verb form of and {{tr-verb form of}} which should make everything a lot cleaner and tidier (see [1]). As of now, it supports (2nd person) imperatives and indicative aorists. I suggest that we only add support for forms that we actually want to keep as entries. That way, non-inclusion-worthy verb forms can actually be tracked by their lack of use of {{tr-verb form of}} if that makes sense. Which further forms should I implement? I will do a big AWB sweep though all Turkish verb forms as soon as this is done (already done some today but I stopped as soon as the idea of this template came to my mind).

Regarding the terminology around imperatives and optatives that is used on Wiktionary: I have actually learned a different system from my grammar reference. I've learned that Turkish only has imperatives for the second person with the other forms (gidelim, gidesiniz etc.) being optatives. What is your opinion on that matter? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Good work; maybe we’ll get most of the mess cleaned up this way. Replacing {{inflection of|tr|...}} by {{tr-verb form of}} will also require a (smart) sweep; it is not clear to me that the order makes much of a difference.

There are also the second-person optatives -(y)AsIn(Iz) and third-person optatives -(y)A(lAr). The coexistence of mutlu olasın and mutlu ol shows that we cannot conflate optatives and imperatives at will. The template {{tr-conj}} makes the first-person optatives -(y)AyIm/-(y)AlIm do double duty as imperatives, but I’d prefer blank entries for the first-person-imperative slots.

As to the forms to be supported, what do we want to do with cases like gelecek, a noun, also (although not listed as such) an adjective, but obviously originally a verb form? Or the adjective genişletilebilir? We can put the verb-form info in the etymology section, but also there it would be nice if a template can be used.

I have some doubts about formal plural. To me, yapmayınız does not seem more formal, but softer, less direct, more polite, making it almost a request instead of a command. But I’m not a native speaker, so my sense may be off.  --Lambiam 11:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I've removed the first person imperatives: Special:Diff/67657898 It's not the prettiest fix in the world but I will at one point revamp the Turkish verb templates anyway (I have some good ideas in mind).

As for gelecek etc., it is not clear to me why we would have two different etymologies for that. Compare for instance angesehen. I will however add support for the -ecek forms. This reminds me that we currently lack the colloquial futures yapçam etc.

As to the -iniz imperative, I can change that but there aren't too many labels to choose from (see Template:inflection_of). I must have missed that it supports "polite" which is what I'm going to change it to now. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I just did a first sweep and fixed all imperatives. I was able to get rid of some pretty ridiculous nonsense, e.g. diff and diff. A lot of negative imperatives still lack the correct {{U:tr:homograph pronunciation}} template and use plain text instead (e.g. yapma). Don't think that's too AWB-able unfortunately. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We are down to approximately 243 "uncleaned" Turkish verb form entries (from over 1300): [2] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam, İtidal, MhmtÖ, Vox Sciurorum, Djkcel, Whitekiko, Allahverdi Verdizade: We need to decide whether we want to include the following verb forms as form-of entries. Would be nice if you could just write yea/nay below the headers. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Users seaching for kaptığı will be led to kapmak; I can’t think of a reason why yaptığı should be treated differently. However, what about sarmalı, which can be the necessitative of sarmak, but also the third-person singular possessive of sarmal? Should we have a page with entries for both the verb form and the noun form? And yapan can also be English and Spanish, so if the Turkish entry is scrapped, users are unlikely to find it. (yapmak is currently the 26th item in the list of “other search results”.) Other than for such considerations, my position is a general “nay” for all forms below – if one is included, there has to be a reason for including it that applies specifically to that specific form.  --Lambiam 21:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)