Talk:çimerlik
http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=BBxkAAAAMAAJ&q=%C3%A7imerlik&dq=%C3%A7imerlik&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=G0IMVIy4JIeVPICUgZgL&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=KidkAAAAMAAJ&q=%C3%A7imerlik&dq=%C3%A7imerlik&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=G0IMVIy4JIeVPICUgZgL&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCQ
At links it says çimerlik is word of Azerbaycan, so Azeri word. --83.66.25.64 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Azerbaijani and Turkish are very close, they may borrow words from each other. Don't you understand this, Türkeröz? --88.251.163.12 20:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Tagged but not listed by 123snake45 (talk • contribs), with the comment:"There is no that word at Turkish. It has been prefabricated! It isn't Turkish." A couple of cites have just been added to the citations page for the entry, so it looks like a good time to assess those cites and see if there are any others.
The definition in the entry is "beach".
This fits the profile of the type of terms that our anonymous Turkish protologism purveyor targets: the word for beach one finds in dictionaries is plaj, which is an obvious borrowing of French plage- they specialize in trying to substitute terms manufactured from items in various Turkic languages for common Turkish words whose etymology isn't Turkish enough for their taste. The dictionary app on my computer has a verb çimmek (“to bathe (in a creek, stream, etc.)”), which could be the source for this, along with -er and -lik. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are at least two citations from Google Books, so stop saying gibberish words and shut up. — This unsigned comment was added at 2001:a98:c060:80:7948:8701:2669:dbc5.
- Your theory is wrong. There is already another word 'kumsal' for a beach as a Turkish origin word. --88.251.225.194 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- In what way does that invalid his (Chuck Entz's) theory? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was aware of that, though it literally means sandy. As for the previous comment: the issue isn't whether it's gibberish, but whether it's really Turkish. If someone were to try to translate beach into Turkish as çimerlik, there's a real possibility that they would either, at best, come across as not knowing Turkish very well, or, at worst, simply not be understood. A language consists of what people actually speak or have spoken in the past, not what someone thinks might be a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Kumlu literally means sandy. The definition of kumsal is 2. Denize, göle vb. yerlere girilebilen genellikle kumluk alan, deniz hamamı, kumbaşı, plaj according to the TDK's (Turkish Language Association's) Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary. --88.251.163.12 10:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just my two cents. If a word, used in the given language, is attested, for CFI purposes, it's possible to include a word, which is quite rare and native speakers are not very familiar with it. It can be qualified as rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- You can look at http://tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts&arama=kelime&guid=TDK.GTS.540b8776ea62b5.08911904
- Your theory is wrong. There is already another word 'kumsal' for a beach as a Turkish origin word. --88.251.225.194 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
plaj, kumsal, kıyı, sahil words are exist but there is no çimerlik. Because çimerlik is Azeri word. So originally is Azeri. Lie of "çimerlik=Turkish" is same personal who prefabricate words of "sınalgı, birdem, özçekmiş, haydavcı, yöndemci, köpyak, düşerge, eğleç, türküm, karabat, yağday, emes, öndürücü, haydamak, birak, dikuçar, beket..." e.t.c --123snake45 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The rules we use are WT:CFI. RFV basically requires someone to cite a word for it not to be deleted. If someone is not offering cites, then there's basically no point in arguing against a word. If there is someone providing cites, then it's irrelevant what any other site says; the question becomes, among other things, if the cite is from an appropriate source and if the word is really used in the text. Words that are actually used will be kept, even if strongly disapproved of by whatever authorities there may be, though a note to that effect is appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- 123snake45 is behaving like this because he fabricated many words and those words were not accepted. After this he tries to delete other words that he sees on the forums which people discuss with him because of his absurd words. If you think that pan-Turkists or language purists use this kind of words it is irrevelant with if the citations are valid or not. A word can be used by the nationalists or the communists etc. A dictionary represents a word if that word really exists. I have just added the translations of the citations from Google Books so decide yourselves if they are valid or not. --88.251.163.12 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The rules we use are WT:CFI. RFV basically requires someone to cite a word for it not to be deleted. If someone is not offering cites, then there's basically no point in arguing against a word. If there is someone providing cites, then it's irrelevant what any other site says; the question becomes, among other things, if the cite is from an appropriate source and if the word is really used in the text. Words that are actually used will be kept, even if strongly disapproved of by whatever authorities there may be, though a note to that effect is appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The citations look valid, so: RFV-passed. It gets no hits in this Turkish corpus, though, whereas plaj does get hits, so I've marked it as rare and added a synonyms section containing a link to plaj. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment about the citations: There were 6 citations:
- I couldn't find one of them, the one of 1990: if anyone can post a link to the page scan, I'll take a look at that too.
- The 2013 citation [1] is not at Google Books, but it is the website of a journal that's also printed; it shows the contents of that journal, so I'm going to assume that that's ok for CFI purposes.
- The 1958 citation is on a non-durably archived website, here [2], but a certain someone (gee, who would that be? ;-) ) has copied that and posted it to Google Books. (!) Copying a forumpost and putting that on Google Books still makes it a forumpost; it's not a printed work as described in CFI.
- The 1978 one is a mention (language purification guide of the Turkish Language Association).
- The 2007 one has a different meaning. -- Curious (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand about the 1958 citation. Do you mean Google Groups? In any case, there is nothing about the form of any work in CFI; it's about whether it's durably archived. Forum posts, like personal letters and diaries, are perfectly eligible if they are durably archived (like the use of the diary of Samuel Pepys on camlet and cittern).--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think they meant Google Books. The mere fact of appearing on Google Books or Google Groups doesn't make something durably archived. We accept Google Books cites because we presume that they're just digital copies ofprinted works that are also durably archived elsewhere. We accept Usenet cites from Google Groups, not because they're on Google Groups, but because they're on Usenet, which is copied all over the place and impossible to really delete. If non-durably-archived material can be submitted to Google Books, its occurrence on Google Books doesn't, by itself, make it durably-archived- a copyright owner can have it removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything on Google Books. Looking and thinking about it again, it makes no sense; how can a 1958 citation be a forum post?!? That page seems to have the entire (almost certainly illegal) copy of a book Yılanların Öcü by Fakir Baykurt, which is indeed on Google Books in several editions, though I can't get Google Books to bring up anything that looks like that citation. Yılanların Öcü is durably archived; Worldcat lists 45 libraries as holding copies, and I'm guess there would be a lot more if Turkish libraries were regularly listed by Worldcat (no Turkish libraries are in that 45). The question is if the cite accurately quotes the book and uses the word in that sense, not whether it's durably archived.
- It's easy to post a message on Usenet, and that satisfies CFI. It's conceivably and easily abusable, and obviates worrying about people adding non-durably-archived stuff to Google Books to generate a cite for Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think they meant Google Books. The mere fact of appearing on Google Books or Google Groups doesn't make something durably archived. We accept Google Books cites because we presume that they're just digital copies ofprinted works that are also durably archived elsewhere. We accept Usenet cites from Google Groups, not because they're on Google Groups, but because they're on Usenet, which is copied all over the place and impossible to really delete. If non-durably-archived material can be submitted to Google Books, its occurrence on Google Books doesn't, by itself, make it durably-archived- a copyright owner can have it removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I provided link to a scan in Citations:çimerlik for the 1990, Aziz Nesin quote.
- As for the discussion about 1958, Fakir Baykurt quotation, here is a dubious looking entry in Google books, discovered via google:"Şehrin peştemal kuşanmış". Nonetheless, the 1958 Fakir Baykurt quotation is not independent of the 1998, Fakir Baykurt quotation per having the same author (WT:CFI#Independent)), so let's just leave it out of discussion.
- Three suitable attesting quotations seem to be there in Citations:çimerlik: 1998, Fakir Baykurt; 2013, Reşad Mecid; 1990, Aziz Nesin. User:Curious, can you see the scan of the 1990, Aziz Nesin quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- How is pass? It's at citations are not enough for pass. --123snake45 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- 2007, Berna Olgunsoy, Balıkesir Yöresinden Derlenmiş Bitki ve Hayvanlarla İlgili İnanış ve Uygulamalar Üzerine Bir Araştırma (a master thesis), page 179:
- Bunun için de bu çimerlikler, iyi bir yerde, bütün gözlerden, nazarlardan gizli bir yerde kurulurmuş.
It is not a place to take a bath, it is a beach.
" Azeri Türklerine ait diger bir efsane de su sekildedir: “Geçmis zamanlarda adet söyleymis ki, yıkanma, çimme vakti gelince insanlar, çayın kenarına kazan koyup yıkanırlarmıs. Arı, namusu her seyden üstün tutarlarmıs. Bunun için de bu çimerlikler, iyi bir yerde, bütün gözlerden, nazarlardan gizli bir yerde kurulurmus. ...” "
So, it is mean "place to take a bath" kind banyo and hamam. --123snake45 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter even if it belongs to Azerbaijan people, because the text is completely in Turkish. The original version of this sentence is: Buna göre de hemin çimerlikler e'tibarlı yerde, bütün nezerlerden gizli olan yerde olarmış. in the Azerbaijani text (source: Metin Ergun, Türk dünyası efsanelerinde değişme motifi: Metinler, Volume: 2, Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, 1997 - 557 p. It is listed in Google Books) So it was translated into Turkish and the word 'çimerlik' was remained the same. --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 12:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
This Turkish entry passed RFV last year and has three citations; however, 123snake45 believes that those citations were fabricated. I can see the source of the 2013 citation here; however, the 1990 and 1998 citations do not show up for me, so I can't independently confirm their existence. If they are indeed there, could someone upload the screenshots, so that this issue can be put to bed?
Pinging @Chuck Entz, Renard Migrant, Atitarev, Prosfilaes, -sche, Curious, Dan Polansky, who contributed to the first RFV discussion (IPs omitted). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It has been suggested that citations may have been fabricated. In any case, they can't be reproduced, so might as well fail the term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am fairly certain I could see these quotations back then. In an unrelated search, it seemed to me I could no longer access Google Books pages that were previously accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- One thing to try would be which domain you're using for Google. Sometimes it behaves differently if you use Google.com and, say, Google.co.uk, especially if you're not accessing the version of Google for your country. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Google Books has been relisting a large quantity of books from page view or snippet view to no preview over the past few months. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- The link of the first citation was added by Dan Polansky: [3] --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dan confirmed seeing the text of the 1990 citation in 2015, and ISMETA confirmed seeing the 2013 citation above, so I think we can trust that those citations exist, and if they're no longer accessible, it would seem to be due to the known phenomenon of Google changing which texts are accessible, as LBD says. (Incidentally, Thing//thing is another case where a book not accessible via Google Books was cited, because DCDuring happened to be reading the book at the time of the RFV.) I am inclined to believe the citations are thus real, although the word is clearly rare, not standard. I would close this as "kept". - -sche (discuss) 16:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)