Talk:Oghuric languages

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The article contains this sentence:

The Oghur languages are characterized by sound correspondences such as Oghuric l versus š and Oghuric r versus z. Oghuric is sometimes referred to as.

Well, referred to as what ???? --Sukkoth 08:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

This entire article is bogus. It refers to the Bulgaric languages which are for no logical reason re-named "Oghuric" on the strength of some books by a mediocre Business Studies student and "Khazaria" amateur enthusiast Kevin Alan Brook. A shameless self-promotion and advertising scam which has polluted far too many articles on Wikipedia. At the same time, your Business studies lecturers were wong about you, you should have got a first class degree with honours simply for coming up with such an ingenious business plan Kevin. My hat is off to you on that account Kevin. 31.55.78.170 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely correct John, Oguric refers to Kipchaqized Ugric whereby Chuvash is the only known example. The idea that the Pannonian Avars spoke Oguric rather than Ugric is however nothing but a fringe theory popular among pan-Turkist Hungarians. Hunnic on the other hand is certainly nothing but a Kipchaq language, while there is no evidence that Bulgar and Khazar were anything other than dialects of Oghuz.31.55.121.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John might be confusing Bulgar with Bulgarian though, admittedly, the references to the work of Brook would be more relevant in the article on Khazar than it is here where we're dealing with the linguistic classification of Turkic and not with the hypothetical religions of the speakers of any of these languages. Eklir (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this a bogus article. This language should be named Hunno-Bulgar language as defined by Omeljan Pritsak.The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, Granberg, page 6, http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pdf. Analyzing 33 personal names survived from Attila clan, Pritsak concludes that this unknown language resembled proto-turkic and proto-mongolian. It is well known that Bulgars were Huns, the article Bulgars is also bogus article because it is written by the turk Crovata (who is probably from Croatia). All these biased articles hinder Wikipedia to become reliable source. Even an idiot can grasp that to classify an extinct language judging only by a couple of personal names is highly controversial. Nevertheless Turks continue to say that this language was Turkic, and they invented special name for it - Oghuric. By such logic they can claim that Norwegian is also branch of Turkic languages. The purpose is obvious - turks claim that Huns were Turkish tribes. As if there is sth to be proud of. He He he. Huns were nomads and marauders. Nothing to boast. Usually Bulgarians try to hide that Hunno-Bulgars participated into the formation of modern Bulgarians. Also everyting points that European Huns originate from Yuezhi and they were not Turks but tochars, as Ashina turks initially were Indo-Europeans and originate from tocharian Usuns. (see Zuev - Early Turks). Encyclopedia Britanica state that

  Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from     a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations. Early Bulgars inhabited the European steppe west of the Volga River from about 370 ce. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov.

Pritsak uses the term Hunno-Bulgarian http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036005 when he speaks of the Bulgar branch of the Huns and he uses the term Hunnic language when he speaks about the Huns as a whole. No Oghuric language - this is a coin term without any serious justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Turk Crovata has no shame to delete information supported by the leading specialist in this area - he deleted that the Huns spoke the same language. Turks have hard time in the past 10-12 years since genetic tests were introduced. He says that Pritsak ( Harvard) is not a specialist but the turkish Peter Golden is a specialist. This guy has fucked up a lot of articles here recently - Dulo, Bulgars, Utigurs, Onogurs, Kutrigurs. Cheers with these turkish bullshits. And here is my sign: (359) 988 911-486.

@

Altaic language... The Huns were precursors of the Turkic peoples both in the historic and cultural respect, but not in the linguistic one as the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there (China, 6th century). Everything else you already know.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Essentially, she is supporting here the minority viewpoint (already documented in our article) that the Bulgar language wasn't an Oghuric (= r-Turkic) language — but rather a part of a not closely related Hunno-Bulgarian language group (whose two known components, logically enough, would be Hunnic and Bulgaric).

If, as Crovata comments elsewhere, the actual source for these terms as synonyms for Oghuric are "Maenchen-Helfen (1970s) and Pritsak (1980s)" (the latter moreover being some different source from Pritsak (1982), more on which in a moment), these should be probably cited directly. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tackling now Pritsak (1982:459):

The Hunno-Bulgarian metathesis mentioned above (no. 12) is responsible for the change of *ker into *kre. The k- in the initial position of the suffix /GAN/ is the result of Hunno-Turkic (e.g. Chuvash, Old Turkic) devoicing after r, l, n.

It is not immediately clear if Pritsak here means by "Hunno-Bulgarian" and "Hunno-Turkic" a group of related languages, or is simply indicating that the changes he is discussing have a distribution covering e.g. Hunnic + Turkic (whatever their relationship). However, one thing is clear: his "Hunno-Turkic" covers also Old Turkic, which is a non-Oghuric language. It follows that there is no grounds here to claim "Hunno-Turkic" as a synonym for Oghuric (though perhaps it could provide grounds for "Hunno-Turkic" as a name for a larger grouping that covers all three of Hunnic, Chuvash and Common Turkic).

But let us look up other writing of his to clarify. Page 470, his concluding remarks (emphasis mine):

It has proved that it is possible to determine the character of the Hunnic language. It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to the former and the latter. The language had strong ties to Old Bulgarian and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to Ottoman and Yakut.

Thus, Hunnic is very clearly not Turkic, and no such thing as "Hunno-Bulgarian" can be, either. Whether "Hunno-Bulgarian" is anything at all remains unclear: Pritsak clearly brings up commonalities between Hunnic and Bulgarian, but just as well between Hunnic and Old Turkic. It is possible that he conceives all of these, and not just the latter, as

— Under the above-referred item no. 12 we find:

In the root, bli-, it is easy to recognize a typical Hunno-Bulgarian vocalic metathesis (…)

This refers to another work: Pritsak, "The Proto-Bulgarian Military Inventory Inscriptions", in Turkic-Bulgarian-Hungarian Relations (Budapest, 1981). Snippets on Google Books show that this work does employ the term to "Hunno-Bulgarian":

The final -m (…) goes back to -n (…) This is one of the typical Hunno-Bulgarian features as compared with Turkic, e.g. Old Turkic sān "number" = Chuvash sum "id." (p. 43)

Here pil- is a regular Hunno-Bulgarian correspondence to the Turkic baš "head" (…) (p. 45)

The context makes it clear that here he is talking about relationship. It remains unclear to me, however, if he means:

1. "Hunno-Bulgarian" = Oghuric;
2. "Bulgarian" = Oghuric, Hunnic = a third branch of the language family, and "Hunno-Bulgarian" = a branch comprising of Oghuric + Hunnic;
3. "Bulgarian" = Oghuric, Hunnic = a third branch, and "Hunno-Bulgarian" = the
   Common Turkic
   .

It might be reasonable to mention that the term Hunno-Bulgarian has been used, but I would not suggest adding it as an outright synonym.

Also, still no sign of "Hunno-Turkic" — which I'd, again, expect to be at most a term for the extended Turkic language family in general; with "Hunnic" standing for the Oghur branch or for a separate branch of its own, "Turkic" for the possible Common Turkic branch. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tropylium, I am sorry, but you obviously don't understand the topic. Read again the whole context and revert the edits. Problem with the older scholars like Pritsak (the work on which is based the first source) is that they mixed together Huns and Bulgars (and others) in the same ethnic and language group, and thus they don't speak specifically about the Hunnic or Bulgar (or Chuvash) language, but one language group no other than Oghuric (which term previous scholars didn't use, not even l/r, and as such invented and used several other terms). See Peter Benjamin Golden An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples (1992: pg. 88-89, 95-97, in his work he separates them i.e. is neutral on Hunnic); Golden Ethnogenesis in the Tribal Zone: The Shaping of the Türks (2008/09: pg. 9–14); Golden Turks and Iranians: An Historical Sketch (2006: pg. 3–4); Golden Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples (2006/07: pg. 136); Gerard Clauson Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics (1962: pg. II, 6–7, 9, 15, 22–24 on Huns and l/r language); András Róna-Tas Early Bulgarian loanwords in the Permian language (1983: 3, 26–27); Denis Sinor The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (1990: pg. 201–202); Karl Heinrich Menges The Turkic Languages and Peoples: An Introduction to Turkic Studies (1995: pg. 32, 53, 61, 66, 88); Hyun Jin Kim The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (2013: pg. 29, 30, 90, 93, 204, 210, 258).--Crovata (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking better. Menges (1995:61) for example seems to make an entirely adequate citation for the term "Hunno-Bulgarian". Checking also a few more of these (Clauson 1962, Róna-Tas 1983, Golden 1992, Golden 2008) I have still yet to find one in your list here that would support the term "Hunno-Turkic", though. Would you care being a bit more specific about which of these one would need to look into for that?

It may need stressing that I'm disputing the terminology specifically. The fact that Hunnic is often considered a part of Oghur Turkic is not at stake.

(Your problem here seems familiar — you want to cite something that's "common knowledge" enough that it's usually not sourced, upon being brought up. Alas, the solution to that is not to insist on maintaining tertiary-at-best sourcing that tangentially mentions a thing but fails to support the actual claims about it. It's instead what your comment here now does: to go for primary or secondary sources, or at minimum tertiary sources that are clear enough on what they're using a term for and where they're getting it from. I will insist that something like Granberg (2008) would still be an unworkable source here, and IP anon earlier was quite justified in removing the material.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other Turkic too have: күз - eyes and күр(ергә) - see.--Чӑваш (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Oghur languages has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ÖKÜZ translates as OX to English. Also, I personally think that giving ÖKÜZ as an example is derogatory as 'ÖKÜZ' can be used as a slang word in Common Turkic. Elasolova (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BULL means BOĞA by the way, so if you do not know *** do not try to put some *** content OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elasolova (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done--Please provide

WP:RS supporting the translations you wish to be incorporated.Attacking other editors and using expletives is generally not a very cooperative way to have a talkpage discussion.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

An external and reliable dictionary maintained by users: http://tureng.com/tr/turkce-ingilizce/%C3%B6k%C3%BCz

Wikipedia.org itself links pairs Ox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox) Öküz (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96k%C3%BCz)

If you click Turkish on English Ox page, you will land in Öküz page in wiki itself.

 Not done - Sites maintained by anonymous users are not considered reliable. Neither is Wikipedia itself. Please provide reliable secondary sources, and read

here for examples. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Ox - Öküz http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/turkish/ox Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Dictionary online. Retrieved at January 31, 2017

If you query bull instead, you will see it will return boğa.

I hope this will suffice, thanks.

I undid the last edit so problem solved. Thanks.

Well someone undid my undid, so the problem persists. Please take care of this issue thanks...

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Oghur languages has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Avar should be replaced with Pannonian Avar as the modern Avar alnguage is not a Oghar language according to its article 70.20.38.210 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: "Avar" in the infobox already links to Pannonian Avars, so I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for. If you can clarify your request please reactivate the {{edit semi-protected}} tag by following the instructions above. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Kipchak languages it is ögiz, not buka. Bull and ox are two different things. Ox is öküz (Turkish), bull is boğa (Turkish). Same in Kipchak languages. Also, there is no d>z phonetic change in Kipchak languages, Siberian languages have this feature. Oldest Bulgar form is not wokur bcs it is ökör in Hungarian, borrowed from Bulgar, but I see indicating Chuvash and Volga Bulgar features is not weird. What's the source of the table? Where does the Kipchak language on the table come from? It's not Kazakh, Nogai, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Bashkir or Kumyk etc. Such a Kipchak language does not exist at the present time. BurakD53 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oguz (tr, az, tk öküz), ot (tr, az od; tk oot), yort (tr, az, tk yurt) do not represent Oghuz forms either. BurakD53 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go read about the Altaic languages, and do not compare modern Turkish with ancient Oghuz Won Woghur (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/spectat/12445712/43765/43765_600.gif As I understand it, you are far from both history and linguistics.  You don't know how, for example, Old Russian differs from modern Russian, how the Oguz language differs from Kipchak and Ogur, how modern Turkish differs from its proto-language. Russian Russian sounds are also not understood by you, an Englishman will not be able to pronounce Russian words freely and even more correctly write it down, so the word will be distorted, due to the absence of letters in the English language that transmit Russian sounds, and vice versa. Similarly, the word öküz became oguz. And the word ökör became ogur. The Turkic peoples called all their strong warriors "bogatyr" from the word "boga" - bull, literally strong as a bull.Bulls or oxen have always been sacred animals among different peoples, like the Sumerians and the Egyptians, for example. The Russian word bogatyr comes from the Turkic Bull, Ox. Also in Russian, a strong and large person is called the word Bugay

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8B#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Funeral_procession_at_Ur,_circa_2600_BCE_(reconstitution).jpg Won Woghur (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to write thesis. And still not getting your point. Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These illiterate don't learn don't know their own language where "öküz" (oghuz) - "ox (bull)" in Azerbaijani, Turkish and Turkmen languages. In the Kipchak they don’t know that in Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Bashkir, the word "ox (bull)" is written as buka (буга). Used rotacism *r < z

ogur < ökör < wăgăr < ox, bull

oguz < öküz < ox, bull

kipchak < buka < ox, bull

These Turks compare the modern language... and these people edit Wikipedia, well, like a ballerina repairing a Boeing. Won Woghur (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh ögiz. What do you mean? Beshogur (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buka is bull, not ox. ox is ögiz in Kiphcak. See my table Draft:Turkic languages phonologic table, make a table acc. to these features. You can not say oguz comes from öküz, this is totally wrong. Oğuz comes from ok which means tribe and has no relation with öküz. What's your source about these two are related, even so ox is not oguz in any previous or modern Turkic language. BurakD53 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying something so illogical that it took me a while to understand. You claim that the word Kipchak comes from the word buka. This is funny and untrue in every way. Of the sounds found in the buka, only the k sound is in the word kipchak, and I am very curious how you will explain how the buka turns into the word kipchak. Sorry, I don't mean to insult, but I'm really curious. Can you please explain?😂 BurakD53 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buğa in Azerbaijani is bull or ox. 5.197.218.86 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: can you revert all of his edits? He's simply misleading people with false references. + reported him for block evasion and he got blocked. Beshogur (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier can you make it grammatically correct and fix the mistakes if possible? Volgabulgari (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just grammar. And so much about patience... :( –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from grammatical mistakes, what other shortcomings or flaws can be identified in this article? Please let me know. Volgabulgari (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, these are the main issues (and NB, some of them had been there before):

• Everything is crammed in the section "Features"? Why? "Features" is about the linguistic characteristics of the Oghuric languages that set them apart from the Common Turkic languages. Nothing more, nothing less. The relation between Chuvash and historical languages does not belong there, all the more stuff like "even though much of the modern-day Hungarian genepool also has strong Slavic, Germanic, and Iranic influences" (which has been there for a year now). There still much to nuke before we can think about expanding the article.
• Now, if we want to talk about the relation between Chuvash and historical languages, we have to keep two things apart: languages that are sufficiently attested to make meaningful statements about their affiliation (e.g. Volga Bulgar), and languages of fragmentary attestion, where "classification" attempts mostly rests on circumstantial evidence (e.g. Hunnic). Speculations about the latter can be mentioned of course, but with due weight. Savalyev devotes a half-paragraph to the Hunnic question in a densely-printed 19-page chapter that has the same scope as this article, so IMO one sentence about is enough here (a good WP has ca. 100–120k word in source code, which is much smaller than Savalyev's chapter).
• Is the question concerning the linear history from Volga Bulgar to Chuvash really settled? Johanson has his doubts about it (strangely enough not cited here), so it might a good to include something like "Since the surviving literary records for the non-Chuvash members of Oghuric are scant, the exact position of Chuvash within the Oghuric family cannot be determined"—which you however consider undue, right?
• So where do we leave the Hungarians? Well, their genomes probably best completely out of this article, that's totally off-topic. Ok, separate from the sections about the well-attested and less-than-well-attested actual Oghuric languages, we can devote a section to Oghuric influence on other languages. If good mainstrean sources trace Turkic loanwords in non-Turkic languages specifically to Oghuric, then that's definitely worth mentioning here, whether the recipient language is Hungarian, Mari, and maybe others.

To sum up: let's disentangle these subtopics in the present version of the article first, and then we can survey and discuss what reliable sources say about things that we might wish to add. –Austronesier (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. For your concern:

I did not add anything about "Oghuric gene pool of Hungarians" or "Oghuric relation of Hungarians" I tried to revert it though. I believe that was a contribution of user @OrionNimrod. He was undue my revert and shared a genetic relation of Huns/Oghurs with Hungarians in my page, using mytrueancestry proximity as a source. I added literally nothing about Hungarians. Only split paragraph and merged with my sentence in up.

I tried to add Chuvash in here, it doesn't even mention that Chuvash is only living Oghuric language today. It also absent of sharing information about Chuvash relation with Volga Bulgar. You are right that I revert "Since the surviving literary records for the non-Chuvash members of Oghuric are scant, the exact position of Chuvash within the Oghuric family cannot be determined." this was my sentence taken from Chuvash page. I revert because being sole living representative of Volga Bulgar does not mean you are directly descendant from Volga Bulgar language. Whether Chuvash is directly descendant from Volga Bulgar or a sister language of Volga Bulgar,

Some linguists argue that Chuvash is a direct descendant of the Volga Bulgar language, while others suggest that it is a sister language that developed alongside Volga Bulgar. Regardless of its exact origins, Chuvash is the only surviving language that is closely related to Volga Bulgar, and it provides important insights into the history and culture of the Bulgar people. In all cases, Chuvash is successor of Volga Bulgar language. Volgabulgari (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volgabulgari! Please do not accuse those things what I did not do. Revert what? I never edited this article. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, checked again. The contribution made by @OrionNimrod regarding the Oghurs and Hungarians was actually made in the page of the Onoghurs (link) rather than in Oghuric languages. Volgabulgari (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volgabulgari! Well I used content from an international genetic study and I did not write any strange things. You can check the source. Avars moved Carpathian Basin, then Onogurs, then Hungarians and all of the mixed, which is quite normal, people are not evaporate, Like settled Cumans assimilated also among Hungarians. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any assertions or comments regarding the validity of the aforementioned sources nor claimed you shared strange things. It isn't uncommon for nomadic populations to mix and assimilate over time, it can result in changes in cultural practices, language, and genetic composition.

Historical movement of populations in the Carpathian Basin, where Asian Avars, Onogurs, and Magyars (Hungarians) migrated and intermixed, leading to a complex cultural and genetic landscape. Volgabulgari (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it wasn't @OrionNimrod who made these additions. And it's not about the veracity of the text; it is just terribly off-topic in this context. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Austronesier, the aforementioned content in up pertains to the Oghuric relationship of Ugric-speaking Hungarians, it also includes the potential Oghuric genetic influence on Hungarian peoples in linguistic features section.

Should you find my edits to be perceived as "terribly off-topic," I kindly request that you consider making adjustments to my content while retaining grammatical accuracy and relevance to the topic at hand Volgabulgari (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DNA issues are generally off-topic in linguistics articles since language is not encoded in genes. That is especially true of unrelated languages where their speakers might share some genes through prehistoric contact rather than linguistic relationship. Oghuric loanwords in Hungarian (or vice versa) is relevant, shared genes are not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. On the top of it, Chuvash is an actual Oghuric language to mention, it's worth noting than Hungarian loanwords or Oghuric genetic influence on ugric-speaking Hungarians. How is Chuvash "terribly off-topic" while Oghuric influence of a Finno-Ugric language or even genetic influence of Oghuric peoples on Hungarians is related? Volgabulgari (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about genetic influence while I specifically stated that genetics are irrelevant to discussions of linguistics and linguistic relationships. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you didn't even understand what I'm talking about then. Article ALREADY states those and I think its irrelevant while adding information about only living Oghuric language is "terribly off-topic"

Article already has information about Hungarian genetic connections and Oghuric borrowings of Ugric Hungarian language. He consider these as related while mentioning Chuvash is off-topic. Haven't you read article before replying me? Did you really replied to me it's off topic adding genetics while my comment already stating the same. Volgabulgari (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Oghuric tribes are often connected with the Hungarians, whose exo-ethnonym is usually derived from On-Oğur (> (H)Ungari). Hungarians -> Hun Oghur -> (ten oghur tribes): On ogur -> up.chv. Won ogur -> dow.chv. Wun ogur -> belor. Wugorac -> rus. Wenger -> slove. Vogr, Vogrin -> cheh. pol. Węgier, Węgrzyn, -> lit. Veñgras. The Hungarians are culturally of mixed Ugrian / Turkic heritage, with strong Oghuric-Bulgar and Khazar influences, even though much of the modern-day Hungarian genepool also has strong Slavic, Germanic, and Iranic influences. Hungarian has many borrowings from Turkic and Oghuric languages"

Adding information about only living Oghuric language: "pretty off-topic 🤬👎"

Adding information about borrowings of unrelated Ugric language, genetics of these speakers, culture of these language and Slavic, Germanic and Iranic influences of this Oghuric-influenced Ugric language: 😍😍😍 Volgabulgari (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Genetics are irrelevant to discussions of linguistics and linguistic relationships"

@TaivoLinguist That was a wise quote from you. If you still think the same, you can fix these "irrelevant" genetic section. Volgabulgari (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're building up strawman arguments. "Off-topic" referred to the excessive details about Hungarian ancestry. Nothing else. It's hard to communicate when you relate statements made by me about one thing to other things that were not addressed by it. –Austronesier (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Indeed, it wasn't @OrionNimrod who made these additions. And it's not about the veracity of the text; it is just terribly off-topic in this context"

I was talking about this right there. Volgabulgari (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kindly asking how Chuvash is not worth mentioning in Oghuric languages while you are keeping Hungarian genetics and Oghuric influence in Hungarian language? I didn't add anything about Hungarians in here and I don't see any reason not to add Chuvash. Volgabulgari (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You write: it doesn't even mention that Chuvash is only living Oghuric language today. That's not quite correct. This[1] is a version of the article before you started editing it. It says on two occasions:

• "The only extant member of the group is the Chuvash language."
• "Today they [=Oghuric languaes] are represented only by Chuvash."

Just for the record. And I'm not keeping shit. I throw it out at my own pace when I eventually find time to. –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already checked this version and I also remember it from that time. Old version is irrelevant right now because I'm not the one who added Hungarian section and I'm also not the wiki user who deleted "Hunno-Proto-Bulgarian" section. The problem is it's just one sentence in summary. We have only two proved Oghuric languages, one is Bulgar and the other is Chuvash.

Don't you think Chuvash deserves its own heading? Because we literally have a heading for a non-Oghuric language who influenced from it. And we used to keep the genetics of that language's speakers in "linguistic features" section. Do you really believe adding anything about Chuvash would be "off topic" Volgabulgari (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. Strike out the "off-topic" strawman stuff, or I'll ask for an interaction ban. –Austronesier (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a funny adjective I head from user @TaivoLinguist I guess he wasn't talking about my version Volgabulgari (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you started doing it[2] even before @TaivoLinguist chimed in. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider this a misunderstanding then. I actually hate bickering and metacommunation, so I won't pursue the who-said-what any further.

I basically agree that Chuvash as the sole living member should be given some space in the article, but there's other ways to that than being repetitive. "Last living Oghuric language, the Chuvash is the sole living representative of Volga Bulgar language" is repetitive. I'll work on something today or tomorrow. –Austronesier (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good edits, Austronesier. They are a vast improvement to the article, getting rid of all that "Hungarian DNA" nonsense, and clarifying the linguistic situation of Chuvash. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TaivoLinguist: FYI, @Volgabugari has been blocked for socking. Feels like a perennial deja vu with these ethnochauvinist POV pushers LOL.

I still think this page needs some restructuring, but I will take a slower pace now. –Austronesier (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, TaivoLinguist Please check carefully all of Volgabulgari edits, I do not know the reason, but he removed huge Hungarian related contents from many Hungarian related topics, I collected some of his activity: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Removing Hungarian related contents and strange modifications on Hungarian related articles For example, Cumans and Hungarians had many common historical things, events, battles, even some Hungarian royals had Cuman ancestry, Cumans settled assimilated among Hungarians, Volgabulgari removed (35 000 long Hungarian contents) from the Cumans article, and left only 1! sentence regarding Hungarians in the article. When I asked why, he arrogantly said, "readers do not want read about this..." as reason to removal. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why would anyone open a new account and edit war on the same topic. Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beshogur, that is why I like wiki with strict rules, less space for trolling = more reliable than other websites. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]