Moderator:voron
renata wrote:I don't have myself a text processor with arabic letters, but my friend does and she has an arabic version of Microsoft Word, therefore i cannot really help you.
I tried inserting arabic letters as symbols but then again, i could not link them, nor show them in their correct position. Certainly, i don't really know how you could do this.
Try asking in the persian forum, they might know about any text proccessor with this letter.
renata wrote:I don't have myself a text processor with arabic letters, but my friend does and she has an arabic version of Microsoft Word, therefore i cannot really help you.
I tried inserting arabic letters as symbols but then again, i could not link them, nor show them in their correct position. Certainly, i don't really know how you could do this.
Try asking in the persian forum, they might know about any text proccessor with this letter.
Sisyphe wrote:I think I'm going to ditch modern Turkish for a while...This has more cognates. And they're easier to recognize too. This script I prefer also haha.
How easy would Ottoman Turkish be if I knew Arabic, Persian and Modern Turkish?
Sisyphe wrote:
I think I'm going to ditch modern Turkish for a while...This has more cognates. And they're easier to recognize too. This script I prefer also haha.
huhmzah wrote:Also, the book that I found at my university library is called "Grammaire Turke: Langue et la Littérature des Nations Orientales." It's an ooooold and big book (the copy my library has is falling apart literally, its from the mid 1800s) BUT it's very thorough and it was very helpeful.
Sisyphe wrote:
I think I'm going to ditch modern Turkish for a while...This has more cognates. And they're easier to recognize too. This script I prefer also haha.
I TOTALLY agree haha. Sometimes while reading modern Turkish and I wanna bang my head on the wall -- I mean, it's a great language, but sometimes there's nothing for me to hook on to! And some of those neologisms are just horrendous, especially when you think about the pleasant-sounding Farsi word they replaced.
With Osmanlica, there's a nice Farsi word waiting for you at every corner. I try to cheat and use Farsi words in Modern Turkish when I don't know the neologism, but then I get reprimanded by my Turkish instructor for writing like his grandfather lol. But I still have the urge sometimes to write asuman instead of gök, or hemşire instead of kιzkardeş, or
hoşgeli instead of güzellik lol.
"Sahiden mi?"
huhmzah wrote:"Sahiden mi?"
What's ironic is that "Sahiden mi?" has an Arabic word in it nonetheless صحيحدن مي؟ from "صحيح"
And to answer your question -- the book is fairly large, and goes through several different variants of the "Turkish" languages (Les Langues Turkes - basically all the turkic languages from Uyghur to Kazakh etc) ... The largest section however is dedicated to Osmanlιca, in fact that's most of the book - and its not classical, its Yeni Osmanlιca.
I started studying Osmanlιca before Mod. Turkish and found the book to be very clear BUT I think I should mention that since this book was published in the mid 1800s (mid 19th century i.e. pre-Ataturk) it uses French orthography when it wants to clarify the pronunciation of something like:
پاشاڭڭ كديسى باغيچه سينده اولدو.
"Pachaneň kédiçi baghitché çindé euldu."
Which is phonetically accurate, but looks like a mess if compared with the much neater:
"Paşanιn kedisi bahçesinde öldü."
So I would guess that anyone who learned the modern Turkish alphabet and then went back to this book, might find the phonetic-explanations unnecessarily messy and at times very different. There are several turkic words which were pronounced differently in Ottoman Turkish, ex: "daha" was "dakhi" /daxɪ/ or.. "için" was "itchoune" /iːʧyn/. I suppose the colloquial street pronunciations of these words were standardized and taken in by the reform movement rather than the bourgeois pronunciations that the book is probably based on.
There is anoter one, "gerkçen mi?"
the calligraphy is hell
How does osmanlica help you in your studies of the Northern African vilayats?
huhmzah wrote:There is anoter one, "gerkçen mi?"
Ah! I've read "gerçekten?" - is that the same is "gerkçen mi?"
the calligraphy is hell
Oh yea you're absolutely right! I've grown up writing/reading the "nastalique" script but even I can't decipher a lot of that calligraphy mostly because most of the time they are in the Arabic "Riqa" or "Diwani" scripts rather than the Persian "nastalique" script. Arabs tells me they find Nastalique impossible to read, so I guess its all relative.
But Ottoman-Turkish + Diwani/Riqa = Recipe for Insanity. Fortunately the books teaching Ottoman use type-set letters which are wayy easier to follow. Btw, here's one you could use -- it's all online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j0u9Mw-TsyIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ottoman+turkish&ei=PlZwR5-DG56EiQG98uh3#PPR1,M1
How does osmanlica help you in your studies of the Northern African vilayats?
Well, the Ottomans ruled over those areas for a period of time, so Ottoman Turkish and "Ottoman Arabic" affected the dialects of those areas - some features are more apparent than others, for instance the suffix "-çi", which occurs in the Tunisian Dialect etc. Lexical borrowings such as "Barsha", "Bey" and "Basha" are some other remnants.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests