Best way to approach studying Turkic languages as a polyglot

[paulcal]

I have recently become interested in the Turkic language family, and I was wondering what would be the best way to approach them in order to become as conversant with as many people as possible. I also do not want to neglect reading, but foremost I would be interested in developing speaking skills. A lot has been written about logically and systematically approaching other language families, but I am unsure of what would be best with Turkish.

I was thinking to start with Turkish, and then move eastward throughout the branches, perhaps studying Kazakh, Uzbek, and then Yakut. At some point, I would want to add Ottoman Turkish for a historical element and also to perhaps aid in Arabic and Persian, if I were to begin those.

Thanks in advance!

[Lycopersicon]

This is a topic of interest to me as well, as I am planning to go back to Turkic languages next year.

I think that several points are worthy of consideration.

First, it is obviously true that Turkish is by far the most practical option in the sense that it boasts widely available study resources and learning materials, as can be legitimately expected given the demographic weight of the country as well as its strategic clout. Turkey is a major tourist destination and Turkish media has also snatched a sizeable audience for itself all over the world, which means that students have the possibility to immerse themselves in the language with thousands of hours of TV series just a click away.

With that said, it should be noted that Turkish is in a way the most diverging language of the family, most notably as a result of the linguistic policy that was enforced by the founders of the Turkish republic in the first half of the twentieth century. The tricky thing is that there are cultural factors at play, too. Turkish society is now mostly urban and has undergone a long process of westernization which is reflected in the ways the language is written and spoken, as a large variety of collocations and modes of expressions have been imported via the translation of European works and the imitation of western journalism.

All of this is relatively important because it means that Turkish won’t really give you a satisfying overview of the extant diversity within the Turkic family. What I mean is that, in theory, there could be better options out there if you are looking for a stepping stone.

My point of view is that a language like Azerbaijani could arguably give you an edge in a way that Turkish won’t. Its phonology is more typical and it also has a greater lexical proximity to the other Turkic languages spoken in middle Eurasia. Another key factor is that Azerbaijani hasn’t been purged of its Perso-Arabic element to the extent that Turkish has.

I studied Azerbaijani in depth roughly half a decade ago myself, and was quite happy with my choice (despite the fact that native content was much harder to source back then).

However, what is usually understated is that Azerbaijani is very much a diglossic language. This is something to be aware of because you seem to be interested in learning how to speak.

Whilst the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a standard version of the language that is based on the dialect of Baku, the reality on the ground is that there is a myriad of living dialects. Incidentally, the official Baku dialect has been Turkified in large part, which makes it artificially closer to Turkish compared to, say, the dialect that is actually spoken in Tabriz. This also explains why the perceived proximity between Turkish and Azerbaijani is quite deceitful. Having studied Azerbaijani up to a decent intermediate level, I could understand Turks with more ease than the native speakers of Azerbaijani I would come across.

Ultimately, the spoken dialects of Azerbaijani are characterized by a pervasive Iranian and Caucasian substratum. Scholars even point out to the existence of a sprachbund that encompasses Armenian, Azerbaijani, Persian as well as other western Iranian languages like Talysh, Tat, Kurdish etc.

For example, where Turkish and standard Azerbaijani would use a verbal noun and a modal verb to convey will and desire, spoken Azerbaijani dialects favor a subjunctive construction that is decidedly Indo-European.

See the following article for more in-depth illustrations:
https://www.caucasustalks.com/post/lang ... zerbaijani

All in all, a decent alternative, I think, would be Uzbek (or Uyghur).

Uzbek is the central Asian Turkic language par excellence. It has maintained a vast Perso-Arabic heritage yet its grammar is still very much true to type. It even shares its complex system of modality with the neighboring Kipchak languages (which is a feature that is absent in Oghuz languages, by the way). Uzbek has a high lexical proximity to both Kazakh and the eastern Oghuz languages (more than 70%). If you want vowel harmony, just go for Uyghur (in passing, lack of vowel harmony is also attested in certain varieties of spoken Azerbaijani so it’s not that abnormal in the grand scheme of things).

Then again, the situation on the ground is a bit more complicated as there are several Uzbek ‘dialects’, one is actually an Oghuz language (it is spoken in the region of Urgench near Turkmenistan) while the other is thought to belong to the Kipchak sub-branch.

Uzbek and Azerbaijani can serve as ideal gateways to Chagatai, Ottoman and even Persian. The transition from Turkish proper to Ottoman isn’t as evident because you will have to familiarize yourself with the extensive Perso-Arabic component… so you might as well learn a Persianized language from the get go!

So, to sum up:
- Turkish is more practical but it is a rather atypical member of the family
- Azerbaijani is a very good middle ground if you come to terms with the diglossia
- Uzbek (or Uyghur) will make almost any other Turkic language and Persian very, very accessible

[kanewai]

Unless you have a special connection with Uzbekistan, Azerbaijani, or other Turkic areas, your best bet will be to go with the language that has the most speakers and the most resources: Turkish.

There aren't even that many resources for Turkish, compared to the major European and Asian languages. From my experience there are just barely enough learning materials to get you to a level where you could start speaking and using native materials. It would be much more challenging with Uzbek, Azeri, et al.

[Axon]

This is a topic of interest to me as well, as I am planning to go back to Turkic languages next year.

I think that several points are worthy of consideration....

Fascinating post! What kind of difference is there between the Turkish spoken in Turkey and the Turkish spoken in diaspora communities?

[vonPeterhof]

While I'd nitpick describing Turkish as "the most diverging language" of the Turkic family (Chuvash, anyone?) I think Lycopersicon's post gives a very good overview. If I can just add my own perspective as someone who learned Kazakh at school and later went through a speedrun of some of the major Turkic languages, I remember being struck by how much Perso-Arabic everyday vocabulary languages from Uyghur in the east to Azeri in the west had in common that was either entirely absent from Kazakh or so thoroughly phonologically assimilated as to be unrecognizable (Kyrgyz wasn't one of the languages I studied in my speedrun, but from what I've seen of it the latter phenomenon is even more striking there). Even Turkish seemed a bit more in tune with this shared body of vocabulary, albeit leaning comparatively more into the "Arabic" part of "Perso-Arabic".

So I suspect that out of the four modern languages mentioned in the first post going from Turkish to Uzbek and then to Kazakh might be a smoother transition than going from Turkish to Kazakh. Unfortunately the jump over to Yakut won't be smooth either way. While languages like Khakas and Altai have a lot in common with Kipchak languages (native speakers of Altai told me that Kyrgyz specifically was the easiest of the "big" Turkic languages for them to understand), Yakut is pretty isolated even from the other Siberian Turkic languages (although still easier to aurally and visually identify as a Turkic language than Chuvash).

[David27]

Timely and germane post by langfocus:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WHpqT2nDrfY

[paulcal]

Thanks for all the interesting replies so far. Really good stuff! So for me, it might seem best to go with Turkish -> Azeri -> Uzbek -> Siberian.

I am already a bit into Turkish, and given the high mutual intelligibility with Azeri, it might be a good idea to keep at it and start Azeri once I solidify my Turkish a bit more.

I am still curious to know where North and South Kipchak languages would fit in? Before or after Uzbek? In particular, I am interested in Kazakh but also in Kyrgyz and Tatar. Similarly, I am also interested in Uyghur (a Karluk language), which I suppose would be best after Uzbek.

Given the similarity between Turkish and Azeri, Kyrgyz and Kazakh, and Uzbek and Uyghur, I reckon that one would be able to pick these others up much faster. But again, this is just my supposition. I would love to hear from more informed people.

[vonPeterhof]

I am still curious to know where North and South Kipchak languages would fit in? Before or after Uzbek? In particular, I am interested in Kazakh but also in Kyrgyz and Tatar.

I would place Kipchak languages after Uzbek and before the Siberian ones. Now out of those languages specifically I would, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, place Tatar before Kazakh or Kyrgyz. While Kazakh is geographically closer to Uzbek, I feel like Tatar actually displays a degree of Perso-Arabic influence somewhat closer to what you see in Oghuz and Karluk languages, perhaps owing to the fact that Tatar culture was Islamicized and urbanized earlier than that of the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz, so there was a longer tradition of Islamic learning and stronger ties to Ottoman and Chagatai literary cultures (Platon Melioransky, the author of possibly the first academic grammar of Kazakh, noted that literate Kazakhs usually learned to write from Tatars or Bukharans).
Also, I don't think the Kipchak languages are normally subdivided into North and South branches. Nowadays the standard scheme of Kipchak subdivisions consists of four branches: Bulgar (Kazan Tatar and Bashkir), Cuman (Kumyk, Karachai-Balkar and the standard dialect of Crimean Tatar), Nogai (Kazakh, Karakalpak and Nogai) and Kyrgyz (either Kyrgyz on its own or including Southern Altai). The classification of Kyrgyz has actually been controversial historically, with disagreements as to whether it was a Siberian Turkic language that had converged with Kazakh or if it was a Nogai Kipchak language with some residual features from a Siberian substrate.

Given the similarity between Turkish and Azeri, Kyrgyz and Kazakh, and Uzbek and Uyghur, I reckon that one would be able to pick these others up much faster. But again, this is just my supposition. I would love to hear from more informed people.

Kyrgyz and Kazakh are indeed fairly similar to each other in terms of grammar and vocabulary, and I've found it fairly easy to understand written Kyrgyz with just my Kazakh knowledge. The phonological differences are quite marked though, to the point where I actually sometimes find spoken Kyrgyz harder to understand than spoken Tatar (whose orthography makes it look more different from Kazakh than it actually is).

[Deinonysus]

I know your Turkic shopping cart is already pretty full but if you skip Tuvan, you're missing out on some of the world's most unique music! Here is a duet between Tuvan throat singing legend Kongar-ol Ondar and American blues singer Paul Pena, nicknamed "Cher Shimje" (earthquake) for his mastery of the kargyraa style where the singer's voice is doubled an octave below.



If you're interested learning more about their story, the documentary Genghis Blues can be watched for free with ads here.

[Chung]

I have recently become interested in the Turkic language family, and I was wondering what would be the best way to approach them in order to become as conversant with as many people as possible. I also do not want to neglect reading, but foremost I would be interested in developing speaking skills. A lot has been written about logically and systematically approaching other language families, but I am unsure of what would be best with Turkish.

I was thinking to start with Turkish, and then move eastward throughout the branches, perhaps studying Kazakh, Uzbek, and then Yakut. At some point, I would want to add Ottoman Turkish for a historical element and also to perhaps aid in Arabic and Persian, if I were to begin those.

Thanks in advance!

I see that Lycopersicon and vonPeterhof have covered a lot of ground already.

Some years ago, a few of us did a Turkic challenge where we'd study "big" Turkic languages for three months each, and dabble in "small" ones for about 6 weeks at a time. It was a tough slog for me after about a year since I knew that my chances of ever needing to know these languages seriously (other than Turkish) were near zero. vonPeterhof and I exchanged some final thoughts about the challenge and a few peculiarities of Kazakh.

As for your plan, I'd say that you're better off sticking with Turkish as your introduction to the family considering that you've started learning it. The sizable inventory of learning material available is a huge advantage compared to what you can find for other Turkic languages. It's true that it stands apart from other Turkic languages (including the closely-related Azeri) because of Atatürk's linguistic and cultural reforms, but you're still dealing with a Turkic language. It's not as if you were planning to study all of the Germanic languages but would start your studies by learning the highly divergent English before all of the other kindred languages. In general, moving from Turkish to Kazakh via Azeri and Uzbek is reasonable. In general, I found Oghuz languages and Uzbek to be reasonably easy to study and figure out compared to other Turkic languages, and the languages that you plan to learn have learning material in English. You won't end up like me trying to get acquainted with Bashkir using a German-language textbook and supplementary material issued in Russian. I found Kipchak languages tougher to grasp because of their somewhat less phonemic spelling, more elaborate treatment for vowel harmony, and consonant shifts for some suffixes (e.g. the -dAn ablative suffix of Turkish can be expressed in Kazakh as -dAn/-nAn/-tAn depending on the stem's final consonant). Dabbling in Tuvan and then Chuvash was a blur, and I didn't even bother with Sakha since up to 2020 the only credible textbook available was a .pdf of a textbook in Russian from the Cold War (see below).

If, however, you were to stay serious about trying to learn a Siberian Turkic language someday, then you'd probably choose Sakha and even then you'd need to do a fair bit of hunting for audio since what's available in English (and Russian) is printed material, namely recent translations to English of that older learning material for Russians. Learning material for Tuvan that's issued in English exists but it's even more limited than the translated material for Sakha, hard to find or fairly expensive when you do find it.

To add to Lycopersicon's comments about Azeri, I'd say that if you could put up with the fact that the available learning material is scarcer (and arguably tougher to use) than that for Turkish, then start with Azeri. There's more authentic material on YouTube and the rest of the internet for improving your passive abilities in the language compared to several years ago when Lycopersicon was studying the language. As for me, the bigger problems that I faced were to retain vocabulary since it has more Iranic loanwords in everyday use compared to Turkish (my exposure to Iranic languages is minimal), and that the available stock of learning material just isn't as good as found in Turkish.

The workhorse for the language in the English-speaking world is Öztopçu's "Elementary Azerbaijani" which is an adaptation of his books for Turkish but the Azeri volume covers a fair bit of ground while not having as many exercises as I felt would be helpful. After some time, I tried to supplement it by studying/reviewing my knowledge using "Aserbaidschanisch Lehrbuch" which is published in German but lacks audio. This book isn't that bad although it relies a fair bit on translation drills in its exercise sections and tries to teach features of both northern (Azerbaijan) and southern (Iran) Azeri, which I found interesting but slightly distracting. There are a few other free resources available which I can link to, if you'd like. In general, I tend to agree with Lycopersicon that Azeri could offer a slightly better introduction to Turkic languages than Turkish because of how it uses more of the Perso-Arabic loanwords which some other Turkic languages also retain to a greater degree than Turkish.

If learning resources for it were sufficient, then I'd suggest looking into Crimean Tatar for an introduction to Turkic. It occupies an interesting place in linguistic classification because its standard variant is a Kipchak language with heavy influence from Oghuz via Ottoman Turkish, but its northern dialects show the Kipchak base more clearly by having absorbed much less from Turkish and are very likely a continuation of an earlier form of Nogay (a Kipchak language closely related to Kazakh) via the influx of Nogay-speaking tribes to northern Crimea. In contrast, its southern dialects are classified as Oghuz languages because after all of the Ottoman influence they're now like dialects of Turkish in all but name. What this means is that Crimean Tatar acts as a sort of bridge within Turkic by being rather intelligible with Oghuz languages (especially Turkish) despite being Kipchak while it still has features that mark it as Kipchak rather than Oghuz. Unfortunately, there's little available to learn the language and what little there is in Russian or Ukrainian. The only useful source of information in English for the language is this descriptive grammar by Darya Kavitskaya. When I dabbled in it, I had to use Russian and Ukrainian sources which was tough given my relatively poor abilities in those languages compared to what I could do with English, French, German or even Hungarian, Polish, and Slovak.