Uighur or Uyghur?

by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2006/07/15 12:32 -07:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2006/07/15/666779.aspx

It hearkens back to that Persian? Or Farsi? post I did back in May of this year, and indeed some very similar issues about it exist. The question is whether the name of the language is Uighur or Uyghur....

The simplest answer (were I and all my readers to actually be the simplest people) would be to go to GoogleFight.com and discover that the web thinks of it as Uighur by a 3.3 to 1 margin. But we aren't the simplest people, or at least we try not to be. :-)

A slightly less simple answer is that of course it is not -- the name of the language is actually ئۇيغۇر, so that arguing about the English transliteration of it makes about as much sense as arguing about the best way to spell the transliteration of חנכה or معمر القذافي‎. In other words, it does not make very much sense....

Of course, one could also be really pedantic and claim that since the use of the Arabic script for the language is a relatively recent development, that even the transliteration is a translation of the original. As Omniglot point out:

Uyghur was originally written with the Orkhon alphabet, a runiform script derived from or inspired by the Sogdian script, which was ultimately derived from the Aramaic script.

From the the 16th century until the early 20th century, Uyghur was written with a version of the Arabic alphabet known as 'Chagatai'. During the 20th century a number of versions of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets were adopted to write Uyghur in different Uyghur-speaking regions. However the Latin alphabet was unpopular and in 1987 the Arabic script was reinstated as the official script for Uyghur in China.

But such arguments are ultimately unconvincing, because in truth we do not really make up language name spellings by using such pure standards. The argument of needing the Aramaic spelling to get the "real" name becomes a clear case of reductio ad absurdum, and an argument we can discard.

As I pointed out in the later Persian? Or Farsi? Redux post, the argument there is really a transliteration for فارسی vs. a usage of a much older word for the language, in a much older civilization -- a bit like the argument of using the original Aramaic above! And while using "Farsi" for "Persian" may be like calling Spanish "Español" in English, anyone who watches Dora the Explorer (even I have a niece, you know!) may find that more and more common to be doing anyway. So the whole "connotation preference" argument seems much more reasonable and honest -- and the decision can be based on which connotation is generally preferred.

So what about Uighur and Uyghur? Neither of them holds much in the way of an obvious connotation preference, at least in English, right? And neither really has a common form used in English words -- this language, which is pronounced in English much like "wee-girl" without the L at the end, is not something that one can easily gleen from either spelling, and both look somewhat un-natural given how uncommon the forms are in English. You could make the official spelling in English Weegir and make folks in spelling bees that much happier. :-)

Of course it seems pretty common to keep words out of spelling bees that one could make a resonable case for causing an international incident over the way that the officials expect the word to be spelled, so we are spared that whole issue, in any case.

Now if you look at the language and its Turkic roots (or maybe more accurately branches), the Uyghur/Uygur spelling is more satisfying in Turkish, from the standpoint of both orthography and phonology (not to mention avoiding the violation of Turkish vowel harmony that Uighur/Uigur would be guilty of). Of course this too is not really an argument for the English spelling of the language, either.

It does appear that the government in China prefers the Uyghur spelling in many of its communications, which if it were consistent and broad based would probably be more convincing, at least in terms of a "Letting the largest person in the room settle the argument that was not all that important anyway" kind of resolution. But it seems inconistently applied there too, plus more often than not it is just 维吾尔语 there, anyway.

So is there one that is better? I guess I can see it both ways, and really have a hard time claiming it is the most pressing issue related to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Like many others, I am inclined to lack the energy to fight about which is better to use.

Vista, in the current builds I am looking at, uses Uighur, which if nothing else has the benefit of connection with the three letter ISO 639 code (uig) even though the two-letter code (ug) can obviously go either way. I suspect that this is the sort of thing that could easily change a bit between versions or not based on the passionate feelings of customers about the LOCALE_SENGLANGUAGE, just as Farsi/Persian has managed to do.

Or people might create custom locales to fix what the reasonably see as our mistakes, as I pointed out in Determining (and correcting) locale settings.

(Note: after I wrote all the above, I found a Wikipedia talk page that covers the very same issue, though it too has trouble coming to conclusions on the best spelling to choose -- if nothing else the article let me correct one point I had wrong in my initial text!)


This post brought to you by ئ (U+0626, a.k.a. ARABIC LETTER YEH WITH HAMZA ABOVE)

# John Hudson on Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:23 PM:

I hit the same question when writing a report on Uighur typography and font development earlier this year. My collaborators and I consulted a large collection of books in and about the language, and the use of Uyghur vs Uighur (plus a couple of other, rarer romanisations) seemed very inconsistent. In one case, even the same author used different conventions in different books.

In the end, we settled on Uighur, simply on the grounds that it was more common than Uyghur, although I agree that the latter makes better Turcological sence.

# Umit on Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:42 PM:

It is strange that those who advocated using Uyghur instead of Uighur forgot about the fact that modern Uighur alphabet is still based on Arabic alphabet.  While the spelling of word 'Uighur' is a English word that has been used for many many centuries.  One doesn't have to go too far, just open up any recognized English dictionary such as Oxford English Dictionary or Random House English dictionary, would notice the word 'Uighur' is well established in ancient and modern English.  According to my understanding, 'Uyghur' spelling is more resent creation, possibly dated back to 1980 when so called Uighur New Alphabet was briefly introduced in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China.  The new alphabet was abandoned after 15 or so years.  Currently,  the official Uighur alphabet is Arabic based and has nothing to do with Roman alphabet.  Therefore, it is out of question trying to change correct spelling of English word.  

# teklimakan on Friday, August 11, 2006 4:49 AM:

Hi everybody ( if i mistake in speaking english ,i apologize for it ,i am not a good speaker )
I am an Uyghur person ,
the most right way to writing our name is < Uyghur >.
Uighur is a wrong word , we have another latinic alphabet which we use it where nessesary ( e.g. writing email address, website name ,ect)
The alphabet named Uyghur Latin Alphabet also ULY .
we write Uyghur in ULY .
and the word Uyghur must be spelled [ uygur] ,
weegoor ,and other all wrong .
thank you for giving an eye to my post ,
 good luck ,God will bless you !

# re: Uighur or Uyghur? on Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:24 AM:

A slightly less simple answer is that of course it is not -- the name of the language is actually ئۇيغۇر, so that arguing about the English transliteration of it makes about as much sense as arguing about the best way to spell the transliteration of חנכה or معمر القذافي‎. In other words, it does not make very much sense....

# Michael S. Kaplan on Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:28 AM:

Hi teklimakan,

The anonymous poster who quoted me has a point (well, it was my point, but it is still a valid point!). The transliteration rules are not as clearcut as everyone would apparently like....

# teklimakan on Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:16 AM:

Hi Mr Kaplan ( sorry ,may i call you like this )
you are right !
Uyghur software companies and other institutes researching and
aranging the English title of Uyghur's Geographical Names。
  and Uyghur software companies has already pointed some problems on Vista ,and The best  spelling way of <Uyghur> was icluded . they have already sent the meterieal to microsoft , when microsoft officially anounce Vist ,maybe this problem would be solved . Now the problem fixed on Microsft ( how they do about it )
 thank you , God will bless you and me !

# alturk on Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:04 AM:

good luck everybodys...i am tursun, uygur, alturk is  my nickname,
i am very very pleased  yours to expound a good idea an about my nationality... it'is will being resolved many our problims , this is(Uighur or Uyghur or call the uygur) the an ordinary difference of opinion.we can must of the same opinion, please yours don't stop that's auspicious help and working __this is the hopes held of yours me end my people...  many appreciation yours friendly treatment,
all our may God be gracious, see you again

# uyghur oghli on Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:57 AM:

hi guys!
i am very happy to see this topic.
it is good to talk about the original name of my people.
so the problem is how should we write  the peoples 'name?Uyghur or Uighur?
let's lookk at how the uyghurs spell: Uyghur
U: pronounced as u in Buddist
y:as y in year.
gh:there is no such consonant in english.look at the Deutsch word:
Reise(travel),Drei(three).so gh in uyghur is pronounced as R in Deutsch.and r as in hebrew(examle:lehi tra ot (good bye))
r in uyghur is prounced as r in russian.
so the correct name for uyghur should be Uyghur.

# uyghur oghli on Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:00 AM:

we uyghurs prefer our name to be written as Uyghur.
I suggest all the people write as Uyghur.
if any problem,pelase cantact with me.

# uyghur oghli on Monday, August 21, 2006 2:47 AM:

there is my advice about how to spell Ughur.
according to the above explained post,it should be spelled as /ujγur/,not /weeger/.spelling it /weeger/ is a serious mistake.
in linguistics, we transcript it as /ujγur/.
i wish in microsoft will take into consideration this.
because i am a linguist.

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, August 21, 2006 3:14 AM:

I suppose I could point out the number of times in English that things are spelled neither how a linguist would transcribe them (in IPA or otherwise) nor how a regular user would sound them out?

So that can never be the only consideration. How it has appeared in the OED is at least as big of a consideration, as are a dozen other issues....

# John on Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:11 AM:

Hi everybody,

There were a long discussion about Uyghur vs. Uighur issue at the Uyghur Language Discussion Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UyghurLanguage/message/112

where there are many non-Uyghur linguists and Uyghurologists. The following post has finally convinced more than 90% of the members of that group.

I haven't weighed in to date on the Uighur versus Uyghur issue, partially since I've considered it a question of fairly minor importance, and partially since I have no strong preference myself either way. Since the question doesn't seem to have died down, however, I've thought about it a bit and have decided to send along my own proverbial two cents' worth, in the hopes that I won't make any permanent enemies thereby.

Although normally somewhat of a traditionalist and thus fairly sympathetic to Michael's position, I also find the spelling "Uighur" to be particularly unattractive, and even un-English, regardless of its historical pedigree, and believe as well that the "Uyghur" rendering is in fact supplanting it fairly rapidly in common usage among scholars and linguists working in the field. No matter how well-established "Uighur" may be in certain writing on the
Central Asian area, it seems to me that it has not really penetrated the active or passive vocabulary of most well-read native speakers of English, unless they be specialists on the area.

Looking at recent publications on the language per se, I see that Reinhard Hahn entitled his book "Spoken Uyghur", while Michael Friedrich entitled his (in German) "Uyghurisch". Henry Schwarz also used "Uyghur" for his dictionary. The relevant sections in the compendium "The Turkic Languages" (again written by Hahn) uses "Uyghur", while Anne Lee's translation of the Hamit Tomur grammar is entitled "Modern Uyghur Grammar". Indiana University's Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region uses "Uyghur", Radio Free Asia uses "Uyghur", the Uyghur Dictionary Projects uses "Uyghur", etc. There thus seems to be a trend in the recent Western writing on the language and people itself toward "Uyghur", although the traditional spelling of "Uighur" obviously continues to be widely used as well.

Given that most of the Turkic languages and peoples are not that well known to most English speakers, it strikes me as only natural that, at least in some cases, there may be in time a trend away from the more traditional spellings to ones that more closely resemble their actual native pronunciations. This is especially the case when sovereign states weigh in to have the English versions of their names changed. "Tartar" gave way some time ago to "Tatar", "Turkoman/Turcoman" has largely given way to "Turkmen", "Kirghiz" to "Kyrgyz" (no matter how strange the latter looks to English speakers), etc. "Sinkiang" is, I believe, the traditional spelling for the geographical region inhabited by the Uyghurs/Uighurs, but given the
ascendancy of Pinyin these days, I suspect that few of us are still using that earlier spelling, and that it will eventually take on the
patina and associations of an earlier age, just as "Hindoo" does for "Hindu", or "Mahometan" for "Muslim".

If I'm not mistaken, the Chinese government also prefers the "Uyghur" spelling, which regardless of the tradition in English will also, I suspect, eventually lead officials and others in the wider world to adhere to that spelling over time. So although Michael is indeed correct, in my view, in saying that "Uighur" has an established place in English, it strikes me that this place is considerably less safe than it would be if the word were commonly used in English, which it is manifestly not. Given this situation, I believe that alternative renderings by interested writers, whether English-speakers or not, will likely impact the matter, and that "Uyghur" thus may well continue to compete with, and perhaps eventually win out over, "Uighur". Traditionalists may not like it, and it may indeed introduce some confusion (such as, for instance, in searching for one
version or the other in databases and not coming up with documents using the other version, etc.), but it does seem to me that, judged on recent writing, there is a trend in the direction of "Uyghur" that may be irreversible.

Conclusion: It is better to use "Uyghur".

# vincentdeparis on Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:58 PM:

Well, this is an interesting problem :)

As I know, Uyghur or Uighur (let me use Uyghur) is written in three scripts world wide. Arabic Script: mainly in China;  Cyrillic script: in CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) or ex-Soviet Union; Latin Script: a new born commonly accepted agreement/standard called "ULY" (Uyghur Latin Script)  since 2001, mainly used in Xinjiang and among the Uyghurs in exile.

The Unicode.org website http://www.unicode.org/onlinedat/languages-scripts.html stats all but does not give script IDs. Azerbaijani and Uzbek are also written in three scripts and each scrip has an individual RFC 3066 Script Variants.  Ex:  az-latn, az-arab, az-cyrl, uz-latn, uz-arab, uz-cyrl. I think some Linux (ex: Mandriva) support this kind of scripts code, but not ug-latn, ug-arab, ug-cyrl. I have no idea wether these names are also supported in Common Locale Data Repository of Unicode.org . I have no idea about Microsoft because they are far behind or careless, there isn't even an Uyghur locale or keyboard in Win98/Win2000/XP. This may hurt Michael very badly :)

You can find Uyghur, Uighur and Uigur everywhre. What most people cite the following sites as the main reason their fantasy does not become a reality. See  www.unicode.org and http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn_ascii.html , you can find them all. It seems like people are careless (may be tolerant or respectful) and don't even bother ask linguists or read more about this language.This is very messy and confusing indeed when it comes to select one between Uyghur and Uighur...

I think GoogleFight.com idea is cool but not a good solution to this problem because there are many "garbage" articles on the web and google (born in 1998) crawls only the web pages and not entire publications. Since the question is still alive, I would suggest consulting linguists  (particularly) and/or the Xinjiang/Chinese government.


# oyghan on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:36 PM:

Hi Michael,

I am going to present a paper about the Uyghur language at the 30th International Unicode Conference http://www.unicodeconference.org/bios.htm . If you are coming to this conference, please email me at warisabdukerim at yahoo dot com.

On behalf of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regional Language Committee, I may also submit an official document about the Uighur vs. Uyghur issue. I am sure that this problem will be solved soon...

Michael, if you want to know more about the Uyghur-Latin Script (ULY) mentioned above, please read this: "An Introduction to Latin-Script Uyghur", http://www.uyghurdictionary.org/excerpts/An%20Introduction%20to%20LSU.pdf .



# Tursun Baki on Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:01 AM:

The accurate word must be "Uyghur". In some old English dictionaries there was a word of "Uyghur" and pronounced as "wee'ger". In recent 20 years, some tourists from USA or UK, come to XUAR, they "discover an unknown nation" and asked the uyghur people "How do you call yourself in your native language?" When they answer as "Uyghur", it usually sounds to them as "Uighur". Once an English men had asked me such question in Urumqi. When I answered "Uyghur", he immediately write it down it on his note book as "uighur" (of couse I have cerrected it). I noticed that, the word "Uyghur" sounds to English speaking people as "Uighur ". The source of this word is came from Uyghur language (of course not from other). Someone has misspelled this word into modern English dictionaries. Because he has "miss-heard" this word from the Uyghurs.   tursunbaki@yahoo.com

# Michael S. Kaplan on Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:14 AM:


If you look at the OED, the references pre-date the last 20 years. People need to understand two things:

1) that they are not overturning centuries of evidence by posting their opinions or speculations in my blog, and

2) the English spelling of a language name "belongs" to English language authorities, just as the native spelling of a language name "belongs" to native language authorities.

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 4:37 AM:

It would be perfect if the Oxford English Dictionary could impose the spelling "Uighur", I would accept it right away. But, it has both "Uigur" and "Uighur" in the same dictionary. I don't think it hasn't much to do with the native languge but the bottom line is that the English speakers don't use only one spelling :)

1) Yes, I agree.

2) Please name the English language authorities who can decide the spelling of foreign words in English. UK? US? Canada? Australia? India? Kenya?.

Some Linux use "Uyghur" and some others don't even have the Uyghur language support. Some software on Windows (XP and earlier versions) use both "Uighur" and "Uyghur". I can give the details if you need them.

In short, we really need an authority to decide the unique spelling. The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regional Language Committee is going to organise a conference on this issue on this October. Hopefully, we will be able to select one between "Uighur" and "Uyghur".

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 4:52 AM:

Oh yes, what are the "centuries of evidence"?

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 4:57 AM:

Actually, it is likely that the situation will be what it is now, even if people are made unhappy by how softwre chooses to spell Uighur in English.

Since Uighur is its own language that uses the Arabic script, perhaps native speakers should focus on the spelling of 'ئۇيغۇر', if you know what I mean.

That is the crucial issue. The fact that transliterations vary is simply a reality that everyone may need to deal with?

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:01 AM:

Oyghan -- both transliteration spellings are used (as are others), and have been for quite some time. It is not just the last 20 years that has suddenly seen an explosion of "Uighur" sightings.

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:08 AM:

Yes, I see what you mean. Personally, I would accept even if 'ئۇيغۇر' is spelt "abcedf" if English speakers use ONE SPELLING only. Just like "维吾尔"  in Chinese for example. What bothers me (apparently many non-Uyghurs including native English speakers) is the various spellings like "Uighur Uigur, Uiguir, Uighuir, Uighur, Uygur, Uyghur" and even "Weiwuer"... But what would you do when we really need to select one?

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:18 AM:

When is there a situation that one *must* be selected, truly? Transliterations vary, and not just in this language. The only rule is that there do not seem to be any rules.

It actually reminds me that one of the "core competencies" at Microsoft is "dealing with ambiguity", a skill that worfks very effectively here. :-)

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:18 AM:

Micheal, do you this Microsoft will accept the decision of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regional Language Committee about the "Uighur" vs. "Uyghur" issue? I don't know which one they are going to select but the decision will be applied all over China, and the official document is going to be submitted to the Unicode Consortium, Microsoft.

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:22 AM:

When is there a situation that one *must* be selected, truly?
hmmmmmmm, on IT  for example.

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:25 AM:

There is no way anything can change before Vista ships, which means that it will be several years from now before the question would be discussed in terms of a new Windows release.

And as a rule, like I said, this is as transliteration. It is like arguing with the news services over the English spelling of the ruler of a middle eastern country, or arguing over the English spelling of Chanukah.

In other words, any attempt to insist on one single spelling for a transliteration that does not even match the actual way people understand pronunciation is unreasonable, and people need to set their expectations realistically here and not assume that everything will change....

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:27 AM:

Oyghan -- that is not how transliterations work. EVER.

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:30 AM:

I also notice that Microsoft uses "Uighur" in Windows Vista's Beta version, and "UI" in language bar (right bottom of the screen). Why "UI" and why not the ISO two letter code "UG"? http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html . I don't know if Microsoft made changes since last year...

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:32 AM:

So, what are the transliteration rule of the "core competencies" at Microsoft about the "Uighur" vs. "Uyghur" issue?

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:43 AM:


Did you just put my comments in a blender to come up with this last comment of yours? It makes no sense.

I will try again, and I will keep it simple:

2) Assuming that #1 can be changed is unrealistic.
3) Failing to deal with #1 and #2 is a form of denial on the part of whoever is thinking it.

In other words, it is time to give up on changing the world in regard to how a particular word will be spelled....

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:45 AM:

I understand that you coming to the 30th International Unicode Conference. I really want to know the transliteration rules of Microsoft in order to better understand the problem and I would like to discuss some other issues on Windows Vista related to the Uyghur language. My we discuss live on MSN? my ID is "Oyghan".

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:50 AM:

I see your point. since there are no rules and no authority to decide, it is hard to select one. I think this is going to continue for a while... :)

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 5:50 AM:

There are no specific rules here, sorry.

The language bar issue is by design and is not based on the ISO two letter language code (it is based on the Windows LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME, as I discuss in this post).

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 6:01 AM:

Thanks for the hint.

       Abbreviated name of the language. In most cases it is created by taking the two-letter language abbreviation from the ISO Standard 639 and adding a third letter, as appropriate, to indicate the sublanguage.

but again that does not these convince people (since they never read the documentation anyway).
what is the LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME for Uyghur?  and where can I find the documentation ?

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 6:27 AM:

Your arguments about LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME (http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/02/17/375235.aspx) are confusing and not convincing at all. Where can I get the full list of LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME? and the documentation? may be we should talk to Cathy again about this... :)

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 11:16 AM:

Hello Oyghan,

The LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME for Uighur is UIG, which also happens to be the three letter ISO-639 code. Stripping off the last letter gives UI.

Not every data item in Windows has its values documented; the way you get the values is to call GetLocaleInfo....

I am sorry that you are not convinced, but it is descriptive of what is really there, which means that once again it is an issue with dealing with reality that is the problem here?

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 11:37 AM:

Hi Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to explain the situation in detail. I really appreciate that! :)

What I found strange and confusing is that in some cases Microsoft creates the LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME by taking the two-letter language abbreviation from the ISO Standard 639, and some other cases by chopping off the last letter of the ISO three-letter-code. I am trying to find out if there is a reason why not "UG". As I know, it is not taken/used by another language, it it?


# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 11:41 AM:

No, it is not. But in some cases it does follow the three-letter code -- as it does here. Since there are no other locales that have Uighur as a primary language, the needs for a locale like English where lots of different three letter codes with the same two letter code are needed....

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 11:54 AM:

==since there are no other locales that have Uighur as a primary language==

Sorry I am not too sure if I understood this part of your comment here. Is there also a notion like "primary language" locale and "secondary language" loale?

I know that it is possible to modify/customize locales on Windows Vista. Can we also add a locale for Uyghur as a primary language? How do we add an Uyghur locale on Windows XP and earliers versions? soooo many questions hey?

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 12:34 PM:


I officially give up trying to explain all of the language bar/locale stuff here in comments as we are getting way offtopic. It will be a subject of an upcoming post....

As I said elsewhere, custom locales are not available on Windows prior to Vista. It is not possible to add Uighur (or Uyghur!) to earlier versions of Windows.

# oyghan on Monday, September 25, 2006 1:04 PM:

Alright, thank you for your effort to this topic. I'll wait for your new message about the language bar/locales etc.

I have no more comments about this "Uighur" or "Uyghur" issue. I'll accept and respect the decision of the XUAR government.

# Michael S. Kaplan on Monday, September 25, 2006 2:09 PM:

Hopefully XUAR government will accept and respect the fact that no one holds authority over the English language or the transliterations thereto....

When they come to their decision the information can certainly go to the subsidiary contacts in China, which is where the bulk of the information had been going all this time up until now for the language....

# UYGHUR on Saturday, November 08, 2008 6:42 AM:

On the net there are kinds of English spelling for the word ئۇيغۇر (in Chinese 维吾尔 OR 維吾爾 ). Correct spelling is Uyghur . Uighur is a variation of Uyghur . Uygur is Turkish spelling.

# uyghur on Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:19 PM:


# Michael S. Kaplan on Sunday, November 09, 2008 4:19 PM:


People, this post is not a poll you vote on. It is a description of the bigger problem here....

Please consider a donation to keep this archive running, maintained and free of advertising.
Donate €20 or more to receive an offline copy of the whole archive including all images.

referenced by

2012/06/19 Maybe they're just showing off their fancy fonts? ;-)

2010/11/18 Oriya vs. Odia?

2010/10/10 Korea vs. Corea

2010/02/26 There is no "I" in "Uyghur". Oh. Um. Well, except in the Windows Language Bar....

2008/11/12 "We" don't tell you how to spell *our* language in *yours*, so...

2008/03/23 Vowel "harmony", enforced by political interests?

2008/03/12 Chaudhuri vs. Chaudhary?

2008/02/02 Bangalore or Bengaluru (Bengalūru)?

2007/04/18 Will the real orthography please rise? (HINT: they should all stand up)

2006/11/06 Who owns English, exactly?

2006/09/27 LOCALE_SABBREVLANGNAME is more than just an ISO-639 code

go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day