Talk:Torgut Oirat

Untitled

Add code:xal10(http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=107607&rog3=CH) --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

"then treated as a dialect of Kalmyk"

In Russia, Torgut language is treated as a dialect of Kalmyk language;
In China, Kalmyk language is treated as a dialect of Torgut language and the name Kalmyk is considered colonizing. In Mongolia, we also use the word Torgut. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the renaming of Kalmyk, but from the viewpoint of an Oirat from China, probably so it must be. In Mongolian studies, there seem to be two (ideal) approaches to classifying varieties (somewhat simplified): 1. By makro-dialect: Oirat, Buryat, Mongolian proper, possibly Khorchin. 2. by countries: (Russian) Buryat, Mongolian (including Mongolian Oirat), South Mongolian (including South Mongolian Oirat and Buryat), Kalmyk. The second approach has only one advantage: it accounts for lexical peculiarities, especially loanwords and modern terminology. You see the problem. Strictly speaking, Kalmyk doesn't seem to be a regiolect (as it consists of Torgut and Dörbet), but Torgut is. So the view that Torgut as spoken in Kalmykia is part of a Kalmyk variety might be justified. On the other hand, "Kalmyk-Oirat" (like most classifications hailing from the Ethnologue) is imprecise: every variety that is strictly Oirat in phonetics, phonology and morphology must be considered a variety of the Oirat language. I don't really get the POV yet. And please name a source for the claim that "In China, Kalmyk language is treated as a dialect of Torgut language". I've not been aware of such a claim and I need to look it up. If such a claim is made in scientific literature, we'll possibly have to reckon with it. G Purevdorj (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Many Chinese sources thrat them separately. Those who make a relation gave me the info that Kalmyk is a aprt of Torgut and is a name named by non-Torgut people. I'll try to find some paper because they're more convincing. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And in China, Torgut and Dörbet are considered 2 tribes of the 4 Oirat/western Mongolian tribes(瓦剌/漠西)(Torgut, Dörbet, Khoshut and Dzungars(instead of Choros)). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It might (or might not) become relevant in the following discussion: may I assume that you can read Oirat and Mongolian proper? G Purevdorj (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't.

In China the name Oirat language or Oirat dialect of Mongolian is widely used. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This last point doesn’t cause any problems. I personally agree with the position that Oirat should be considered a dialect of Mongolian (next to Central Mongolian (Khalkha, Chakhar dialect), Eastern Mongolian (Khorchin dialect, Kharchin), Buryat). But the position that has been implemented in Wikipedia and is probably more widespread in Europe is that Oirat, Buryat and Mongolian proper (made up of Central Mongolian and Eastern Mongolian) are Mongolic languages. Of course, the problem is not denied, see Mongolian language#Geographic distribution and dialects which I have written.

I have two “Chinese” sources at hand: Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 and Bulaga 2005. Sechenbaatar et al. (2005: 397-398, my translation) write: “As for the classification into subdialects, the Oirat dialect of China can be divided into Torgut, Khoshut, Ööld, Borutal-a-yin (place name-genitive) Chakhar etc., and the Oirat dialect in the Mongolian state can be divided into Dörbet, Bayat, Torgut, Zakhchin, Uriyanghai, Ööld etc.” They also mention that “the Kalmyks living in … are also heirs of the Oirats”, but they don't classify the Kalmyks according to dialect. Svantesson et al. (2005: 148) write the following: "The Kalmucks are divided into two main dialects: Dörbed, spoken in the western part of Kalmuckia, and Torguud, spoken in the eastern part. The Buzaawa dialect spoken by the Don Kalmucks is close to Dörbed. There is also a small Hoshuud group, whose dialect is similar to Torguud." It doesn't really become clear whether their observations on Buzaawa and Hoshuud are historical or dialectological, but the main division (at least into two varieties, whatever their relation to Chinese or Mongolian Torgut) is clearly stated.

If you cite from Chinese sources, it might be easiest if you give the original title (in Xanzi), but cite in English. G Purevdorj (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I've read your first reply. I don't know who is the "Oirat from China" but I didn't say it.

So do NOT think I'm the Oirat in China. I merely want to talk with some Oirat people. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Source

[1], [2], [3]

• In China, Kalmyk is a word refers to Torguts in Russia and Oirat is the generic terms of (Torgut, Dorbet, etc.). What's the relation between the term Kalmyk and the term Oirat in Russia? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the Russian use is as I can't read Russian (or Chinese, for that matter). But is your first statement, "In China, Kalmyk is a word refers to Torguts in Russia", correct? Or does the term "Kalmyk" in Chinese refer to any Oirat speaker in Kalmykia? G Purevdorj (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

土尔扈特 means Torguts. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[4] (the index)->留居俄国的土尔扈特人 (the article) Kalmyks refers to 4700 Tent Mongolian who didn't move back to China, including 10000+ Dörbets, 8000+ Torguts and 3000+ Khoshuts. ——虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and you need to translate the relative sentences into English so that those who are involved in the discussion can follow your argument and understand your references. G. Purevdorj has already stated that he doesn't read Chinese (neither do I), so please translate the relative portions of your sources. (Taivo (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Judging from this, I still don't think that this article is POV. If Kalmyks consist of Dörbet, Torgut etc. and if these groups have retained their respective dialect characteristics, Torgut can be treated as a subdialect of a Kalmyk Standard language. We might reword it in the fashion. Or how would you propose to improve this passage? G Purevdorj (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it accordingly. Does this address your concerns? G Purevdorj (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Kalmyks consist of Dörbet in Russia and Torgut in Russia. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So Torgut is a larger concept than Kalmyk - it's transnational, and neutral. As a result, you cannot say Torgut is a part of Kalmyk. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That just like Korean Chinese is an ethnic of Manchuria but you can't say Korean is a part of Manchuria. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll cite Bläsing: "There are two main dialects of Kalmuck. Dörbet is mostly spoken in the west of the Kalmuck Republic, while Torghut prevails in the East. ... The modern literary language is mainly based on the Torghut dialect, though it incorporates a large number of concessions to Dörbet." So we can either state that Torgut is one of the dialects of a unified normative Kalmuck, or we can emphasize that it forms the basis of the standard variety. Saying so doesn't limit Torgut to Kalmykia. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

e.g. Esperanto is based on many Latin languages but you cannot say those Latin languages are dialects of Esperanto.

For the same reason, since Torghut language and Dörbet language are not derived from Kalmyk language (On the contrary, Kalmyk language is derived from Torghut language and Dörbet language), you cannot say Torghut is a dialect of Kalmyk language (On the contrary, you can say Kalmyk is a dialect of both Torgut and Dörbet). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As Kalmyk is the standard language, anything subordinate to it would be dialects. But we needn't quarrel about that, as I changed the passage. Just deign to take a look at the actual (modified) version of the article! It does say something to the effect that Kalmyk is derived from Torgut! G Purevdorj (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Standard? That's merely a policy of Russia. Torgut in China and Mongolia won't think such a half-artificial dialect standard. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. There is a bunch of literature in Kalmyk, so you might not wish to outrightly deny its existence. Of course this standard does only pertain to Kalmykia, and that is what the article says. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In reading this article as a non-specialist, I don't see the POV. I see that G. Purevdorj has addressed the concern of Yu Hai about the relative position of Torgut vis a vis Kalmyk. Kalmyk is a standard literary language of Russia (only) and should retain its own existence in Wikipedia as such, especially since it has its own body of linguistic research and literature. 1) This article clearly states that Torgut was the basis for Standard Kalmyk. 2) The Kalmyk article clearly states that Torgut is one of its dialects, that is, one of its component parts. I don't see the problem. Both articles are factually correct and can be supported by the literature as far as I can tell. I can't recall if the Kalmyk article clearly states that it is a Russian standard only or if it implies that it is a standard language beyond the borders of Kalymkia. But that can be clarified. I don't see any POV in this Torgut article as it stands. (Taivo (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Reading... --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I mean, stating Torgut is a dialect of Kalmyk is only the "Russian standard", so the so-called "standard" is not an international standard. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Russians and the Mongolians of Kalmykia consider some varieties of the Torgut dialect to be part of a so-called Kalmyk language, that is information worth noting, independent of the question whether or not it is justified to hold this view. But that is something to be discussed on the Kalmyk dialect/language talk page. Our article at present reads as follows:

Torgut is a dialect of the Oirat language spoken in the Chinese province Xinjiang, in western Mongolia in the Khovd Province and in eastern Kalmykia (where it was the basis for the literary standard language Kalmyk). Thus, it has more speakers than any other variety of Oirat and is better researched than any other Oirat variety spoken in China.

This article did never state that “Torgut is a dialect of Kalmyk”, but in its current form it doesn’t even evoke the concept that some people consider Torgut to be a dialect of Kalmyk (instead of Oirat).

I am ready and willing to discuss your justified concerns, so that we may reach consensus that this article is not POV, but I am not willing to discuss something here that is not stated in the article (anymore)! G Purevdorj (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved

You moved only part of them, I moved the other part . --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read your comments. Thanks for concern. "This article clearly states that Torgut was the basis for Standard Kalmyk" - I agree with that; "The Kalmyk article clearly states that Torgut is one of its dialects, that is, one of its component parts" - That's the problem, stating below:

• I've already stated this example

“ Esperanto is based on many Latin languages but you cannot say those Latin languages are dialects of Esperanto. ”

• • Now imagine if one country made Esperanto as its official language and even made it "standard language" of European languages, will you say "English is one of its(Esperanto's) dialects, that is, one of its component parts"?
• Take another example, modern Chinese is based on classical Chinese, but no one say classical Chinese is a dialect of modern Chinese, neither do we say it's a dialect of Chinese. We say it's the parent-language of modern Chinese and a part of Chinese.
  • In this example, classical Chinese refers to Torgut language, modern Chinese refers to Kalmyk language, Chinese refers to Oirat language and mandarin Chinese refers to standard Kalmyk language.

DePOV

In fact, I do no longer think the article Torgut dialect a POV article, however, I think Kalmyk dialect a little POV. In order to seek consensus, I state my suggestion here:

1. Move Torgut dialect to Torgut language; Kalmyk dialect to Kalmyk language;
2. Merge some informations of Kalmyk language into Oirat language and Torgut language;
3. Let Kalmyk language be an article stating

• 1. Relations among Torgut language, Dörbet language, Khoshut language and Oirat language;
  2. Loanwords and lexical peculiarities;

1. Torgut and Oirat are classification by macro-dialects, Kalmyk is classification by countries;
2. The corresponding article of xal.wikipedia.org should be Oirat language or Torgut language, so that Torgut Chinese and Torgut Mongolian can make contribution to it, since the SIL treated them as one language - Oirat language;
3. For the relation of Oirat language, Torgut language, Kalmyk language and standard Kalmyk language, I think we can consult the relation among Chinese, classical Chinese, modern Chinese and mandarin Chinese.

Carry-over: The relation bewteen Oirats in Russia and Kalmyks. Which ethnic group or tribe is a part of Oirats in Russia but not Kalmyks? And so is the language. ——虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re - carry-over: Darkhad dialect. Moghol language (irrelated). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving again, I'm just writing an answer, wait a minute! G Purevdorj (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be POV to state (without going into any details and citing any source) that Kalmyk is a standard created by the Russians. Indeed, it was largely destroyed by the Kalmyk deportations of 1943. Elista is probably worse off than Hohhot now. Second, Huhnur will be dealt with in the article on Oirat: as I said, they speak Hoshut over there. As you copied the template, to Oirat language, I’ll be forced to correct it today.

Torgut and Oirat are not both macro-dialects. Oirat is either a dialect to Mongolian, or it is one of the Mongolic languages, thus, we might label it a macro-dialect. Torgut is a dialect of Oirat, you may turn and twist it as you will. It therefore should keep its status as “dialect” in line with Chakhar dialect, Ordos dialect etc. As Torgut is the variety best described, it is usually chosen when talking about Oirat in China in general, but that doesn’t change the fact that is not on the same level as Oirat.

I agree that Kalmyk dialect cannot remain as it is.

We seem to have two levels: one determined by isoglosses pertaining to pronunciation and grammar. Within this model, Kalmyk probably doesn’t find much of a place. But this needn’t necessarily be so: please remember that both of us are ignorant and cannot read Russian, the language in which the relevant literature is written. We seem to have a second level on which the following standard languages are placed: Standard Khalkha, South Mongolian (which expressis verbis includes Chinese Oirat, but as a non-standard variety), Kalmyk. These three articles should probably get an extra article as “language” each; the explanation must then follow in the lead section.

But we have a problem: none of us can read Russian. We cannot read most of the sources necessary to improve the article on Kalmyk. I am able to access the necessary literature, but I just can’t read it. I’ve written an email to Bitkeeva, a notable expert on Oirat dialects, to ask her for her opinion on the status of Kalmyk. I won’t do any vast restructuring before receiving her answer.

And yes, please don’t start edit warring. Any edit that isn’t sourced will be reverted. That also holds for edits that confuse Torgut and Oirat (as holds for your recent edits). G Purevdorj (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but there's still some questions:

1. Your revert: what's the problem with /* Distribution and patois*/? Could you add the corrisponding patois in Mongolia and Russia?
2. Since you said "There is a difference between "Russian standard" and "Standard in Russia", could I say standard language in Russian Kalmykia, but not in Mongolia and China?
3. I think we could write a new article Oirat languages, including Oirat language (Torgut, Dorbet, writen Oirat...) and Darkhad dialect.
4. Pls take a look at my reply in Talk:Torgut dialect#Distribution. Thanks!

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I still get the impression that you must be understanding something wrong, but I cannot lay my finger on it.

• There are no "Oirat languages". To the best of my knowledge, Darkhad dialect is a dialect of Mongolian proper, and Kalmyk is a variety (while not a dialect in the proper sense of the word) of Oirat.
• The distribution of Torgut is outlined in some detail in the lead section. We don't know inhowfar this areal distribution relates to any dialectal differences. So to the best of our current verifyable knowledge, Torgut doesn't have subdialects. (I doubt that this is true, though, but this is of no importance.) The dialect spoken in Hohnur is Hoshut, and this Hoshut is a SISTER to Torgut in a tree diagramm. Thus, it is no patois of Torgut! It is wrong to state that Torgut is spoken in Hohnur.
• I considered "Russian Kalmykia", but that might imply that there are other parts of a region named Kalmykia that don't belong to the Russian state. Such an ambiguity would not be desirable. I don't think that the article was ambiguous as it was, but I have yet again reworded that sentence. I hope that this formulation seems unambiguous to you. G Purevdorj (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Darkhad dialect is a semi-Oirat semi-central Mongolian.
2. I think I'll find the source first.
3. Solved.
4. Hohnur=Kokonur? Hoshut=Khoshut=Hoxud?

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Well, I tend to agree with Svantesson et al. or with Coloo who hold that Darkhad is Mongolian proper with some Oirat characteristics. Anyway, I added a quote on Oirat language to the effect that the classification of Darkhad is wildly disputed (which it is, though the data basis for this dispute is unsufficient). On the other hand, the idea of the Ethnologue that Darkhad is a constituting member of some linguistic entity "Oirat-Kalmyk-Darkhat" is wild speculation that to my knowledge is not reflected in the literature on the classification of Mongolian dialects and that is not mentioned in the literature on Darkhad (including the pretty useful summary in Sanjaa and Tuyaa 2001) that I have been able to access. 2. "Hohnur=Kokonur? Hoshut=Khoshut=Hoxud?": I haven't heard "Hoxud", but yes, the rest is the same. <kh>=<h>=[x]. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The Kokonur patrois is language of Khoshut. The article I saw is talk about Oirat language. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll turn to edit Dorbet tribe to some degree since I obtained an article of that. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If Darkhad is not greater Oirat, then what's the difference between Oirat and Kalmyk? Do you mean the only difference is country-difference and loanwords? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent formulation was a bit too strong. If something is clear already and one still emphasizes it, this sounds as it one wants to distance oneself from it. That is not lexical style. "o you mean the only difference is country-difference and loanwords?" - I don't MEAN that this is so. I have only edited Torgut dialect and created Oirat language because it was necessary to avoid a wrong picture about Mongolian varieties. But I cannot read most of the relevant literature. But my current UNDERSTANDING is that it might be like this. I myself am not very interested in the Dörbet as a people, but if you ever turn to their dialect, I'll probably be forced to assist. Best regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kalmyk vs. Oirat (Oirad)

You have missed the point. Kalmyk is just Russian name for Oirad. Nothing more. Enkegen (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This unfortunate confusion is not uncommon in the literature (especially in the older literature), but take a look into the scientific literature and you will see that these two terms are used differently. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange

• Durbet speak standard Mongolian? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cling to reliable sources and you won't have to worry about that. Of course there are people in Dörbet territory that adhere to Standard Khalkha, and there are those that don't. And of course there is a strong Khalkha influence on all Mongolian varieties spoken in Mongolia. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

I couldn't find sources for most of the territories that were claimed to be populated by Torgut speakers. Kazakhstan does have Oirats, but they are "Sart or Ööld" (Svantesson et al. 2005: 148). And western Mongolia is full of Oirats, but Torguut are confined to Khovd aimag. Kokenur has Hoshut and/or Deed Mongol, but no Torguts, and I have no clue what Oirats reside in SW-Gansu (as shown on the map in Svantesson et al. 2005: 141 and mentioned in Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 397). G Purevdorj (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it in reference here and here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Link --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The first link is only about Kalmyk-Oirat and rightly points out that there are Oirat in Kazakhstan, while the second link provides a text that seems to have been written about the Torguts in China, not Kazakhstan, and has nevertheless been combined with an article on Oirat in Kazakhstan. Very misleading. But even the second link doesn't actually state that these Oirats in Kazakhstan are Torguts. I would suggest not to rely on missionaries, except on those that actually wrote a grammar. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See these two maps: 1 and 2.

In 17c Lake Balkhash is the Sino-Kazakh border, and not all Torgut went back to Ili. So it's clearly that Torguts stated this page are not "foreigners in Kazakhstan". Also, according to this map, the distribution of Torguts is continous. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The first map doesn’t show anything about settlements in Kazakhstan, but it is irrelevant anyway: for our purpose we have to know whether there are still people in Kazakhstan speaking the Torgut dialect. During dozens of generations that have passed since, things may change. If the second link is supposed to be a map, I cannot access it.
• As I have just said about the missionaries, they pasted a text written about Torguts in China, and it is probable that they were mistaken in doing so, and they don't link that text to the rest of the article.
• The last map is perfectly correct, but it doesn’t say anything about Torguts in particular. The three green areas in the west are Torguts, the two areas in the east are Hoshuts. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And I am not aware that any form of Oirat is WRITTEN in Mongolia, be it in clear of cyrillic script. If that is to be asserted, a reference would certainly be needed. G Purevdorj (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no Kalmyk people or Kalmyk speakers in Kazakhstan. But there are Sarta Kalmyks in Kyrgyzstan. Sarta means with the Moon in Oirad language, it is common Kalmyk name for muslims. Sarta Kalmyks are muslims but traditionally Oirad people are buddhists. Once again, words Kalmyk and Oirad are synonyms. Enkegen (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide literature? And can you address how these people came to Kyrgyzstan? G Purevdorj (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

ISO 639-3 has no good way to deal with dialects. (Actually, it shouldn't be dealing with dialects anyway.) The only code that should be placed in the bottom section of the language template is the code xal for the Kalmyk-Oirat language (of which Torgut is a part). All the extra bells and whistles that Hai Yu keeps adding don't link to anything at all and are purposeless. Leave the xal code as it is since that is the only reference to ISO 639-3 that it has. (Taivo (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

unicode/infobox

my impression is that the unicode characters for traditional Mongolian also include the letters needed for writing clear script. Am I getting something wrong? Yaan (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the font, I can't tell. But the pictures on Clear script are representative, so you can judge yourself. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

too lazy. but "(non-unicode Todo script)" does not look like the native name for Torgut language or dialect anyway, so I just removed it. Yaan (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there is Todo script in Unicode, but it's of issues and not used. See this. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)