Appendix talk:List of Balkanisms

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

The inception is promising, but one issue is to arise: what will happen to the few Russian entries, who have also connection with Ottoman Turkish - бамия, сундук asf? Do we need additional column? If yes, then the title Balkanisms will sound mal à propos. Bogorm 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Russian though. How extensive was Ottoman influence of the Russian lexis? I suspect that only a tiny fraction of these would have correspondences in Russian (and other languages outside the Ottoman sphere of influence). Perhaps it would be a good idea to a "Misc." column that would contain such words in Russian and other relevant languages, and especially English if the word was borrowed to English from any of the intermediaries (Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Slavic..), in order to facilitate the mnemoisation (and learn a word or few more in the process). --Ivan Štambuk 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the influence is far more negligible than to Balkan languages, but such a column for non-Balkan (or Slovene, which is Balkan, but was not exposed to Turkish influence thanks to the Habsburg Empire) Turcisms would be nice. Bogorm 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


How can the entries be linked to this Appendix so that the reader can make himself familiar with the fellow Turcisms in neighbouring languages? The general user would not find the Appendix easily... Should it be noted in the Etymology sections as For additional information see Appendix:List of Balkanisms Bogorm 08:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The approach I used on Appendix:Sanskrit abbreviations is to put the first column of the row one wishes to link to under <span id="UNIQUE IDENTIFIER, E.G. NUMBER">row value</span>, and then you can link to it using the Appendix:List of Balkanisms#UNIQUE IDENTIFIER. I'll edit one example to give you a clue (we just have to take care that every row has it's own unique ID, they' do not necessarily have to be allocated in increasing order as this list will probably get expanded in random fashion, possibly split to sub-lists when it grows too large and/or alphabetised). --Ivan Štambuk 08:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
See how the Bosnian kula is linked. Now you can link to that particular row in the table (it's the first one, but it would link to it properly if it were the last one) as Appendix:List of Balkanisms#1. So in essence, you could add to the etymology section of the respective entry something like For additional information see Appendix:List of Balkanisms.
If Bosnian kula had been linked, it would have apperaed here, but it has not. Why? Bogorm 09:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Because it's linked by HTML links, not by wiki-links. If you link directly to the entry by using full URL notation (e.g. http:/, the MedaiWiki software doesn't know that you link to it and can't generate "backlink" information. --Ivan Štambuk 09:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • [1] - Actually I accidentally linked baklava, sorry. --Ivan Štambuk 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


The entry does not exist so I would like to discuss the etymology here (WT:ES is only for existing entries). Petar Skok only mentions the Arab word jorgan->jergan (meaning bed covering in lieu of quilt), but does not mention whether it is derived from Turkish or vice versa. Are there other sources in order to verify? Is the Turkish yorgan a derivation of Arab? Bogorm 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Turkish word yorgan comes from the Middle Turkic yogurqān. The term yogurqān takes place in Diwan Lughat al-Turk with the meaning of "quilt, bed cover".[2] The term in Arabic should be a Turkish loanword. --Chapultepec 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, and the term is actually of Common Turkic origin with the original meaning "blanket", and cognates can be found in almost all Turkic languages, including Old Uyghur (aka "Old Turkic"), so the Arabic word is definitely a borrowing. --Ivan Štambuk 08:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Word usage and distribution notes[edit]

Such as archaic, dialectal, regional etc. - it's just unnecessary cluttering that belongs to the main entries, not relevant to this list, so I suggest we remove them all. --Ivan Štambuk 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

True. It's all Bogorm. He wants to stress once again that words borrowed from dirty evil Turks are either obsolete or just dialectal :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. But a more exact explanation would be the improbability of those entries being created in the near future (even if I wanted to create them, it would be pretty demanding, as some of them are new even for me), so I deemed it advisable to give the reader of this appendix a clue as to whether all of them are applicable in modern Bulgarian. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a valid concern, and I share your thoughts on the level of obscurity of the terms. Average speaker has a limited vocabulary he rarely expands and is unlikely to have encountered most of these unless engaging in a form of autodidactic philological activity, or the study of ancient, pre-standard literary works. However, with respect to the etymological validity, the labels such as obsolete, dialectal or archaic are irrelevent: this should only be a list of terms stemming from the same source in the Balkanic cultural sphere, and all the other extraneous information should be relocated to the dedicated entries in the main namespace. Furthermore, there is a very high degree of possibility that most of these labels are valid only with respect to the modern standard/literary idiom: I suspect that these still have plenty of modern-day usage within the regional pockets of Muslim population in the area. At least for the Serbo-Croatian words, I'm pretty sure of that. --Ivan Štambuk 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


May we get rid of this column, as we have no regular contributors who would populate it? (Of course this cannot constitute the main reason, so here is another one:) Furthermore, another language which also lacks regular contributors here is barely repræsented - Aromanian, even though many of these borrowings have their æquivalents in it. We have no column for it, so why should we have one for Macedonian? FYI, in Bulgarian etymological dictionaries the inclusion of Macedonian is inconceivable. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best that we could do as regards the reducing of redundant information is but classify them under the same column ("Bulgarian/Macedonian", "Bulgaro-Macedonian" or whatever). I understand your frustration with seeing Macedonian classified as a separate language, but this is no venue to argue on the justification of its political or linguistic status. This is a wiki-based project on a volunteering basis, and the Macedonian regulars will spring up sooner or later, hopefully expanding and rectifying the list. --Ivan Štambuk 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, merging the columns is a magnificent idea. However, one should opt circumspectly for the suitable caption of the column. I am not ravished by Bulgaro-Macedonian... On the other hand, Bulgarian/Macedonian is better. Are there other suggestions? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Who says we have no regular Macedonian contributors? There is User:Bjankuloski06en and he has done an excellent job. Anyhoo, I say we merge Bulgarian and Macedonian columns: the name ("Bulgarian/Macedonian", "Bulgaro-Macedonian", "Bulgarian and Macedonian") is a technicality, so do what you want, Bogorm. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

table - collapsible[edit]

Is it feasable to make the table collapsible - arranged after the Cyrillic Serbo-Croatian alphabet (exempli gratia one collapsible combo box per letter)? The appendix is now 50k big and it could grow at least 5 times bigger than it is currently. It is being displayed increasingly slowlier. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why, but my browser displays the Appendix:List of Latin phrases (A–E) (three times bigger) visibly faster than this one. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This could be done, and is in fact a natural course of evolution of any such list. First we separate the table by the individual initial letter of the first-column entry for faster browsing by means of a table of contents, then when the list grows larger than e.g. 100 kilobytes we propagate individual letter sections to subpages in order to facilitate page loading (and also leaving one master page where all the subpages are transcluded together). The only possible issue is which column to use for separation - any would suffice, but I assume choosing Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet would be giving too much prominence to one particular language, but on the other hand given that it's the most thoroughly covered column (and very likely to stay such), it might be the best choice. --Ivan Štambuk 21:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Need entry for Balkanisms. 07:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Balkanism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)