Talk:Cuman language

This article is rated Start-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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Central Asia Low‑importance Cuman language is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aren't several Romanian names like Mircea and Aslan actually Cuman? --84.20.17.84 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Lord's Prayer says the language became extinct in 1777. The article says the language became extinct in the early seventeenth century. What evidence is there either way? Kostaki mou (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The actual speakers of Cuman had no written language. I think it's incorrect to say the language uses the latin writing system - the Codex Cumanicus was based on a transliteration in the latin alphabet, but the language itself can't be said to have used the latin writing system. Certainly the speakers of the language didn't use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7100:BA00:4D8A:5A17:9924:FB7D (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Basic information to add to this article: when they first inhabited Eastern Europe. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It seems like both languages are actually the same. The page Kipchak language is not even sourced, and other language wikipedia articles about Kipchak language talks mostly about Codex Cumanicus. Beshogur (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TaivoLinguist: can you elaborate this? I don't see the supposed "Cuman" dialect of Crimean Tatar is extinct Cuman language of Hungary. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Glottolog, the premier source for information about the languages of the world. I wrote to the head of the Glottolog project (Harald Hammarström, Uppsala University) to ask about this and he said "it's a Northwest Middle Turkic variety ancestral to Crimean Tatar and listed as such in Glottolog (Cuman [cuma1241])". (And the fact is that Cuman does have both a Glottolog number and an ISO-639-3 code assigned to it, so there's no reason to delete them.)

And, of course, the Cuman/Kuman group didn't primarily live in Hungary, they were the "lords" of the Ukrainian steppe. The last survivors were refugees from the Slavic expansion into the steppe. Other Cuman survivors in Crimea became the Crimean Tatars.

Here is a quote from the foremost expert in the Turkic languages: "Crimean Tatar proper, called the 'central dialect', belonged to the West Kipchak subbranch as a descendant of Kuman" (Lars Johanson, Turkic, Cambridge University Press, 2021, pg. 62). That's fairly unambiguous, recent, and definitive.

Why is Cuman listed as a "dialect" of Crimean Tatar in Glottolog? Because the origin of Crimean Tatar is in a complex mix of Kipchak and a couple of other dialects spoken on the Ukrainian steppe and the Crimean Peninsula in the early Middle Ages. Cuman was one of the West Kipchak varieties that merged into Crimean Tatar. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TaivoLinguist: And, of course, the Cuman/Kuman group didn't primarily live in Hungary, they were the "lords" of the Ukrainian steppe. There is 0 proof that this supposed Cuman dialect represents this certain Cuman language that died out in Hungary. Codex Cumanicus refers to itself as tatar til, however claiming this certain Cuman language is a dialect of Crimean Tatar (that probably didn't even exist in the 15th century) is far fetched. "Crimean Tatar proper, called the 'central dialect', belonged to the West Kipchak subbranch as a descendant of Kuman" Which means Crimean Tatar is a descendant of Cuman, not the opposite. So I am not sure if Crimean Tatar really has a "Cuman dialect" (I think not, they have 3 main branches), Glottolog's listing might be different. It can remain on the infobox, but I disagree that it should be regarded as a descendant of Crimean Tatar. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The comment by Johansen should be clear, that Cuman/Kuman was the primary ancestor of Crimean Tatar. There is zero confusion among linguists about the simple fact that the dying Cuman language of Hungary was the last remnant of the Western Kipchak language of the Ukrainian steppes that spawned Crimean Tatar. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well both are from the same root, maybe Hungary Cuman was the original branch, but both developed differently. Beshogur (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's not how languages work. There is no such thing as an "original branch" when dialects diverge. There are then two equal branches that are both equally "original" (since they share the same parent). When Cuman in Hungary went extinct, Cuman in Crimea lived on, becoming Crimean Tatar. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about Cuman-Kipchak which was a dialect continuum, you're right, however this article is poorly written and is mostly about Codex Cumanicus. And this certain Cuman dialect died out in Hungary. If this was a Crimean Tatar dialect, then writers would consider Crimean Tatar = original Cuman/Kipchak language. What I'm saying is, when there was no Crimean Tatar, Cumans moved to Kunsag and their language survived until the 17th century, while Crimean Tatar was not even language in the 15th century. As linguistic evidence show, there was almost no difference between Kipchak of the Crimean Khanate[1] (1453) Great Horde[2] (1466). Also if we look at Codex Cumanicus, it isn't even remotely close to Crimean Tatar, which Crimean Tatar standard language lost a lot of its Kipchak grammar, in which Crimean Tatars might understand Turkish more than Kazakh.

Just some observations, for your comment, as I told, this can not be a Crimean Tatar dialect, it's a dead language. Beshogur (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have you been reading what I've written? "Cuman in Crimea lived on, becoming Crimean Tatar", "Cuman/Kuman was the primary ancestor of Crimean Tatar", "Which means Crimean Tatar is a descendant of Cuman, not the opposite". Until you actually read these comments and stop your comments about "this can not be a Crimean Tatar dialect" and "Crimean Tatar was not even language in the 15th century" then it seems that there's no point to try and educate you any further. You don't seem to be a linguist, but just a speaker of a Turkic language or else you would understand these issues. Cuman of Crimea did not go extinct, but it's also not the same language that it was five centuries ago any more than English is the same language that it was five centuries ago. Cuman of the 15th century evolved into the Crimean Tatar of today. That's what the best Turkic linguists have to say about it and you are not in a position to dispute the experts. And while this article does have a lot of information about the Codex Cumanicus, the title of the article is Cuman language, not Codex Cumanicus.--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

What? First maybe avoid doing personal attacks. You are in no position to "educate" me. Based from Glottolog, you added first that Cuman was a dialect of Crimean Tatar to the infobox. Of course this page is particularly about Codex Cumanicus, because the language being poorly documented and Codex Cumanicus being primary example. Beshogur (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"you added first" a week ago and since then I have clearly and unambiguously followed the exact intent and wording of the reliable sources that I am using to correct that notion. Since that time you have not addressed a single word that I have written here that Cuman is the ancestor of Crimean Tatar. You continuously and erroneously keep taking about Cuman being a dialect of Crimean Tatar and even my last comment where I specifically list all the places that I have referred to Cuman as the ancestor of Crimean Tatar and not as a dialect of it you have overtly ignored. If you don't want to be called out for not keeping up with the discussion and making off-topic comments, then please keep up with the comments and don't rely on just the first comment that you read here. Not a single one of your comments refer to any of my comments here other than the very first one. Please keep up. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TaivoLinguist: [3] here, either I can't read it correctly, or you don't renenber what you've put. t I have referred to Cuman as the ancestor of Crimean Tata I agree with you, read my comments. Glottolog lists a Cuman dialect part of Crimean Tatar which is erroneous. Regarding Cuman Kipchak difference, please prove that those two are different then I'll apologize for my mistake and self revert it. Beshogur (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also İslâm Ansiklopedisi redirects Cumans [4] to Kipchaks [5]. Yes there are two different Cumans and Kipchaks articles. It doesn't mean they're different because someone created two different articles. see how authors use both names together. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh also another erroneous listing of glottolog: Old Turkic is divided into two Orkhon Turkic and Karakhanid language, which aren't even from the same branch. This proves my point that Glottolog's listing is incorrect. That's not how mainstream linguists classify Turkic languages. Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Usage in a non-English source must be translated here in the English Wikipedia. That is also an encyclopedia of Islam and the articles don't appear to be about the language, but just ethnic designations. This article is "Cuman language", therefore linguistic sources take precedence over vague ethnographic labels. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Usage in a non-English source must be translated here in the English Wikipedia. That's not true. This is a reliable source with good scholars, and is used on English wikipedia several times. There is no such rule that non-English sources isn't allowed on enwiki. This article is "Cuman language", therefore linguistic sources take precedence over vague ethnographic labels. you didn't provide any source how Cuman and Kipchak languages were supposedly different. Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also funny how Encyclopedia of Ukraine tells the same Cumans (also known as Kipchaks in the East, Kuns or Comani in the West, and Polovtsi in Ukraine). Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is very true that English translations are required if you want people to pay any attention to you. You cannot just cut and paste something in any old language you want and claim that it supports your position. This is especially true of obscure languages like Turkish. And the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is also talking about ethnographic groups not linguistic ancestry. This is an article about a language, not an ethnographic grouping. I can name many, many examples of where ethnographic labels do not match linguistic labels. The Glottolog listing of ancestry (ignoring the way that Glottolog ambiguously labels older forms as "dialects" not just in Cuman's case, but others) is accurate and based on Lars Johansen's description of ancestry--that Cuman is a West Kipchak language and not synonymous with the Kipchak group as a whole. You must avoid relying on ambiguous ethnographic labels when it comes to describing linguistic groupings and ancestry. "No source to prove that Cuman and Kipchak languages are different". Really? You still don't seem to understand how linguistic ancestry works. The Cuman language is a descent of the Proto-Kipchak language, which is the ancestor of the whole Kipchak group of languages. A language is not the same as its ancestor language. Not a single linguistic source equates "Cuman" and "Proto-Kipchak". Think of it this way, we call South America "Latin America", but no one (except priests, of course) ever spoke Latin in those countries. They spoke languages that are the descendants of Latin but are not actually "Latin". Yet the ethnic term remains. That's why I have used linguistic sources exclusively. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It takes me 1 minute to find evidence Codex Cumanicus, an early document of Middle Kipchak or The genesis of this so-called Armeno-Kipchak language is not fully explained. It is close to Crimean Tatar and Karaim, and its relations to the language of Codex Cumanicus are obvious. (Johanson). Beshogur (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

(ec) "There is no language called "proto-Kipchak""... Every time you post something it becomes clear that you don't understand linguistic terminology or historical linguistics. "Proto-Kipchak" is the proper term for the single language that was the ancestor of the Kipchak languages. (Perhaps you've never heard or read the term "Proto-Indo-European"?) Be that as it may, your excerpts do not support your supposed counter argument to my deletion of those two "dialect" from the infobox. "Relations to the language of Codex Cumanicus" does not say that the Armeno-Kipchak was a dialect of Cuman. There are obvious relations between La Chanson de Roland in Old French and the Poema del Cid in Old Spanish, but that doesn't make Old French a dialect of Old Spanish. Once again, you are confusing the ethnographic label "Kipchak" with labels of linguistic ancestry. The people who speak the Timbisha language in Death Valley call their language "Shoshoni", but it isn't the actual Shoshoni language, it's closely related, but different. But as you are doing here, you are confusing ethnographic labels with linguistic labels. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Anyways I'm tired of this discussion. I would like to hear other users as well. Have a good day. Beshogur (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

'It was a literary language in Central and Eastern Europe that left a rich literary inheritance.'

Really? What 'literature' is there in it? Some vocabulary and grammar notes collected by non-Cumans for the use of missionaries (Codex Cumanicus) can hardly be called that. ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply