THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
224
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 20-12-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue12-11
PAGE NO.: - 224-241
THE PROCESSES OF TRANSITIONING TO THE
UZBEK SCRIPT BASED ON THE LATIN
ALPHABET IN UZBEKISTAN
Inomjon Mamasodikovich Azimov
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Tashkent State University of Uzbek
Language and Literature Named After Alisher Navoi, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
During the movement to transition to the Latin
script, the Jadids split into two groups: 1.
Supporters of the old script. 2. Advocates of the
new script. In the press and at various gatherings,
debates were held comparing the two scripts, with
arguments made to justify the advantages of the
Latin script. At the 1926 Congress of Turkic
Peoples held in Baku, a resolution was passed for
all Turkic peoples to adopt the Latin script.
It is important to note that the transition to the
Latin script was interpreted not only from a
linguistic perspective but also politically and
ideologically. The Arabic script was portrayed as a
remnant of the past, associated with the literacy of
the wealthy, mullahs, and religious elites, who
were considered opposed to the interests of the
Uzbek working class and peasants building a
socialist system. Furthermore, it was argued that
the Arabic script could not adequately serve the
needs of the broader working masses, thus
necessitating its replacement with a more modern
script. (Source: Adabi til vǝ imla toƣrisida maqala
va qararlar, p. 6.)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
225
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Even Ashurali Zohiriy, who initially supported the
Arabic script, endorsed the transition to the Latin
script after attending the 1926 Congress of Turkic
Peoples in Baku as a representative of Uzbekistan.
In a speech at a meeting in Fergana dedicated to
the congress's outcomes, he highlighted that the
new Turkic (Latin) alphabet was a thousand times
more convenient and simpler in terms of education
and technical usage compared to the reformed
Arabic alphabet. He further emphasized that as
long as the current Arabic script persisted, the
challenges in printing would never disappear
(Jamolkhonov 2017: p. 173).
The primary challenge facing Uzbek intellectuals
was the creation of a national alphabet, though
there was still a lack of sufficient experience in this
regard. Up until that time, only the Yakuts and
Azerbaijanis among the Turkic peoples had
transitioned to the Latin script, but they still faced
various issues and shortcomings. Additionally,
within the Jadid linguistic movement, there was no
well-established scientific theory or practice for
creating a new alphabet.
Challenges in Creating an Alphabet
First and foremost, the writing system for the
Uzbek language needed to be developed based on
its phonetic structure. This system would then
serve as the foundation for creating a script
(alphabet) and orthography (spelling rules). To
establish such a system, it was necessary to define
the phonological system of the Uzbek language,
particularly the minimum distinctions in sounds
that are essential for comprehension and need to
be reflected in writing. Subsequently, these
distinctions had to be represented in writing as
efficiently as possible.
For other Turkic languages, such as Azerbaijani,
Kyrgyz, and Kazakh, this process was relatively
simpler since these languages were based on a
single dialect (e.g., the Kipchak dialect for Kyrgyz
and Kazakh, and the Oghuz dialect for Azerbaijani).
In contrast, Uzbek is based on multiple dialects.
G‘ozi Olim categorized these dialects into three
groups based on their phonetic and morphological
characteristics:
1.
Kipchak
2.
Uyghur-Chagatai
3.
Oghuz
(Source: G‘ozi Olim, p. 24.)
According to G‘ozi Olim, the Ki
pchak group ranks
first in terms of the number of speakers and
geographical spread. In the general classification of
Turkic languages by Academician Samoylovich,
this group falls under the "Tav" (Northwest)
branch.
The Uyghur-Chagatai group comprises rural
dialects influenced by urban speech patterns. In
the general Turkic classification, these dialects
belong to the "Tag‘" (Northeast) branch.
The Oghuz group includes the dialects of Khorezm
Uzbeks and those of the Ikan Uzbeks in pre-
Turkistan cities. These dialects are classified under
the Kipchak-Turkmen branch in the general Turkic
classification.
G‘ozi Olim’s classification aligns, to some extent,
with that of A.N. Samoylovich. These dialects differ
significantly in terms of morphology and
phonetics, and even within a single dialect,
variations in sound systems
—
especially vowels
—
are evident.
Additionally, as noted by M. Bogdanova, there is a
lack of comprehensive scientific studies on the
Uzbek language and its dialects. While materials
have been collected by the Uzbek Scientific Council
and the Uzbek Scientific Committee under the
former
Turkistan
Republic's
Education
Commission, these materials have not been fully
analyzed (Source: Bogdanova, p. 44).
As mentioned earlier, Uzbek dialects differ in their
vowel systems. Some dialects feature nine (or
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
226
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
occasionally ten) vowels, while others have six or
seven. Naturally, these differences in vowel
systems among dialects made it challenging to
create a uniform alphabet and orthography
suitable for all dialects. An alphabet based on a
dialect with nine or ten vowels would be overly
complex for dialects with fewer vowels.
Conversely, an alphabet designed for dialects with
fewer vowels would fail to meet the needs of those
with more vowels (Source: Bogdanova).
Identifying a standard dialect for such a mixed
dialectal language and creating an alphabet based
on it posed significant challenges. This led to
debates among the Jadids over whether the new
alphabet should be based on dialects with vowel
harmony (synharmonism) or on "corrupted"
dialects that supposedly did not reflect the true
nature of the Uzbek language.
These debates influenced the efforts to create a
national alphabet, resulting in three projects
developed by various organizations.
Analysis of Alphabets
H. Jamolkhonov provided information about two of
these alphabet projects in the current script
(Jamolkhonov, 2019), while N. Yangibayeva
subjected
them
to
scholarly
analysis
(Yangibayeva).
The first of these alphabet projects was discussed
during a conference held on May 19, 20, and 21,
1926, in Samarkand. According to the Uzbek
People's Commissariat of Education, this
conference was convened to consider the
Latinization of the Uzbek alphabet. In this project,
vowel sounds (referred to as "voices" and
"elongated letters") were designated as 10, and
consonant sounds (referred to as "letters") were
designated as 22.
M. Bogdanova also provides information on this
project (Bogdanova, pp. 44
–
48), but there are
discrepancies between her account and the
presentation by N. Yangibayeva. Let us first
examine the alphabet proposed by M. Bogdanova
and her comments on it.
The project, developed by the scientific council in
May 1926, was submitted to the Education
Commissariat of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist
Republic for approval.
Bb
ﺐ
Pp
ﭖ
Tt
ﺕ
Ƶƶ
ﺝ
Cc
ﭺ
Xx
ﺥ
Dd
ﺩ
Rr
ﺮ
Zz
ﺰ
Ss
ﺱ
Șș
ﺵ
Gg
ﮒ
Ff
ﻑ
Qq
ﻕ
Kk
ﻙ
g
ﮒ
Ɲƞ
ﯓ
Ll
ﻝ
Mm
ﻡ
Nn
ﻥ
Vv
ﻭ
Hh
ﻩ
Jj
ﻱ
‘
Mas’ala
Vowels:
ﻭ
- o,
وئ
-
ѳ,
ﻭ
- u,
ۇئ
- u -
ﻭ
,
ﺁ
- A,
ﺍ
- a,
ﻩ
-
ǝ,
ﻯ
-
i,
ﺉ
-
ь ,
ﻱ
-
е.
Observations About the Project:
1.
The vowel system indicates that this
project was based on dialects with vowel harmony
(synharmonism).
2.
It establishes that the Uzbek
language has 10 vowels, with 10 corresponding
letters assigned.
3.
The number of consonants is
defined as 23, with independent letters designated
for each. An apostrophe symbol is also included in
the alphabet.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
227
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
4.
For writing and printing purposes,
the letters are uniform in shape, with no
distinction between uppercase and lowercase.
While the letter "A" is presented as an uppercase
shape for the back-vowel "a", it is used in place of a
lowercase letter.
5.
Consonants (except for q-
k and ƣ
-g)
are represented with a single form, regardless of
their "thick" or "thin" quality (
Bagdanova, p. 45
).
M. Bogdanova’s Comments
M. Bogdanova discusses the vowels included in the
project, acknowledging the inclusion of 10 vowels
and specifically approving the additional back-
vowel "a" sound. However, the scientific center
deemed this sound unnecessary, noting that it is
not characteristic of Turkic languages.
N. Yangibayeva's Observations and Identified
Shortcomings
N. Yangibayeva notes some critical shortcomings
of the proposed alphabet project and emphasizes
areas where improvements were necessary:
1.
Establishing a Standard Dialect.
Before assigning letters to vowels, it was crucial to
identify a standard dialect to serve as the
foundation for the Uzbek literary language.
Without this, the alphabet could not adequately
represent the linguistic diversity of Uzbek.
2.
Incomplete
Representation
of
Nuances. The project failed to fully capture the
subtleties of Uzbek writing. For instance, the “long”
and “short” variants of the vov letter are
represented by the same Latin equivalent,
u
. This
inconsistency may be a typographical error, but it
highlights the need for clear principles in selecting
letters to represent vowels.
3.
Unexplained
Choices
for
Consonants.
Several
decisions
regarding
consonant representation lacked justification: The
letter z was chosen for bot
h “shin” and “jim.” The
letter g was used for ‘ayn. A single symbol was
assigned for
ﮊ
and
ﺟ
without providing a rationale.
These shortcomings point to a lack of systematic
principles in the development of the alphabet,
particularly in its approach to representing
phonetic nuances and justifying specific letter
assignments (
Yangibayeva, p. 25
).
Additionally, Yangibayeva notes the omission of
the ‘ (apostrophe) in the project, speculating that
this might be a technical error. This omission
further complicates the accurate representation of
phonemes in the Uzbek language.
The first shortcoming mentioned is valid because
it is impossible to create an alphabet without first
determining the foundational dialect for the
literary language. As highlighted earlier, this
situation can be explained by the lack of sufficient
scientific experience at the time. However, despite
these limitations, the creation of the first Uzbek
alphabet, though not yet perfect, can be regarded
as a significant positive milestone.
Regarding the second shortcoming, it is noted that
the Latin equivalent for the
vov
letter is given as
u.
In our view, this likely refers to
y
, as the researcher
also discusses
و
(long)
represented as
u (qyv)
and
و
(short)
represented as
u (kyl).
As N.
Yangibayeva rightly points out, this is a publishing
error. During the Scientific Council held on August
27
–
29 of the same year, the letters
u
and
y
were
specifically addressed, and the issues regarding
their selection for representing "thin" and "thick"
vowels were highlighted. Furthermore, in the
project mentioned by M. Bogdanova,
u
and
y
are
distinctly represented.
The third shortcoming raised by N. Yangibayeva is
also valid. The creators of the project followed the
Azerbaijani Jadids, who had some prior experience
with alphabet creation, and adopted letters
directly from the Azerbaijani alphabet. However,
they made little effort to provide explanations for
their choices.
Despite these shortcomings, the creation of the
first Uzbek alphabet was a critical step forward in
the linguistic development of the Uzbek language,
paving the way for subsequent refinements and
adaptations.
The alphabets described by both specialists show
notable differences, as outlined below:
Representation of the "j" sounds: N. Yangibayeva
mentions that the letter z was used for two
different "j" sounds (
ﮊ
and
ﺟ
), while in the 1st
project, only one "j" sound (
ﺝ
) is represented, using
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
228
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
the letter ƶ.
Representation of the "sh" sound: In the 1st
project, the letter ș was inexplicably
used for the
"sh" sound, while in the 2nd project, з was chosen.
Yangibayeva's variant is considered appropriate,
as it aligns with the alphabet project developed at
the August council that same year. Abdulla Alaviy
also explained the rationale behind usi
ng з in his
discussion on the principles of creating the new
Uzbek alphabet.
Uppercase and lowercase letters: The 1st project
claims that letters were designed uniformly for
writing and printing, with no uppercase letters,
only lowercase. However, the table provided in the
project includes both uppercase and lowercase
letters. In contrast, the 2nd project exclusively
displays lowercase letters, which aligns with the
intentions of its creators.
Representation of the "g
‘"
sound (
ﻏ
): In the 1st
project, no sep
arate letter is assigned for the g‘
sound; instead, both g‘ and g are represented by
the letter g, likely a publishing error. In the 2nd
project, z is reported as the letter for
ﻏ
(e.g., in ozl-
o‘g‘il), but the third noted issue suggests g was
used for ‘ay
n. Thus, it is more accurate to assume
that g was indeed used for g‘, and Yangibayeva's
analysis contains an error.
Using a single letter for two distinct sounds was
also recognized as a serious flaw by the Scientific
Center under the Uzbek People's Commissariat of
Education. At a meeting on August 11, this
alphabet was discussed, and the following
shortcomings were identified: Noncompliance
with vowel harmony:
The May council’s project did
not fully adhere to the principles of vowel harmony
(singarmonizm).
Representation of short vowels:In words like
ﻝوﻗ
and
ﻞﻭﮜ
, only one letter was assigned to represent
short vowels, while long vowels were represented
by two letters. Excessive use of letter variants:
Instead of using pairs of letters to distinguish front
and back vowels (as typical in Turkic scripts), the
project introduced three shapes (A, a, ә).
Unnecessary addition of Persian vowels:The
Persian-
derived vowel Ī (A), represented as ɔ in
transcription, was deemed unnecessary. Deviation
from the core goal: The purpose of transitioning
from Arabic to Latin script was to simplify spelling
and adopt standard Latin letters commonly used in
European countries. However, the project included
Cyrillic-like letters (u, g) and Slavic-
style letters (ө,
ә), which were ex
perimental forms.
Neglect of Turkic alphabet experiences: The
project failed to consider the Latin-based
alphabets developed in other Turkic regions.Based
on these criticisms, the Scientific Center did not
approve the May council's project and instead
presented its own proposal.
Proposal by H. Jamolkhonov.Long Vowels
The revised project included 12 vowels, with 10
being paired (representing front and back vowels)
and 2 unpaired vowels. This revision aimed to
address the linguistic and phonetic requirements
of the Uzbek language while overcoming the flaws
of previous proposals.
Paired Long Vowels
Back Vowels
Soft Vowels
a – qal, taş, at – ﺍ
ä – käl, sämän, täkä – ﻩ
o – toq, qol – ﻭ
ö – özbek, cöl, köl – ؤ
u – suv, jun, qul – ۇ
ü – sür, tübük, büyräk – ﻭ
ɔ - qɔl, qɔlɔq – ؾ
ï – kïrmäk, bïlïm, yïl–
ﻱ
Iy – qiygʻir, qiyma–ىي
ïy –kïymäk, tïymäk – يئ
Unpaired Long Vowels
e
–
е
l, sel,
е
r, termäk,
е
r
–
ي
uv
–
suv, quv
–
ﯞۇ
.
Eslatma sifatida quyidagi izohlar bildirilgani
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
229
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
keltiriladi:
"In terms of economy, five basic forms were
adopted for long vowels, with two dots used as a
marker to distinguish between thick and soft
sounds. The reason for adopting two dots as a
marker for softness was that this marker had been
accepted in printing practices and by Turkologists
(although no specific explanation was provided as
to which Turkic alphabet included it). For the
thick-long kasra (similar to the Russian
ы
) in
words like
qiyma, qing‘ir, qiyshiq
and the soft-long
kasra in words like
kïymäk, tïymäk,
a complex
marker was adopted because there is no existing
form in the Latin script capable of representing
these sounds. Similarly, for the zamma in words
like
suv, quv, cuv,
a complex marker was also
adopted for the reasons mentioned above"
(
Jamolkhonov 2019, p. 48
).
The consonants (referred to as somt sounds or
letters) in the project were presented as follows:
Consonants (Somt Sounds) as Presented by H.
Jamolkhonov
1.
ب
- b (
baba
)
2.
ﭼ
- c (
bäccä
)
3.
د
- d (
dada
)
4.
ﻑ
- f (
fiträt
)
5.
ﮒ
- g (
gälä
)
6.
ﻫ
- h (
här
)
7.
ﺟ
- j (
jar
)
8.
ﮎ
- k (
käl
)
9.
ﻝ
- l (
qul
)
10.
ﻡ
- m (
men
)
11.
ﻥ
- n (
nonaq
)
12.
ك
- ng (
tang
)
13.
ﭖ
- p (
apa
)
14.
ﻕ
- q (
qaq
)
15.
ﻏ
-
ƣ (
ƣar
)
16.
ﺭ
- r (
qar
)
17.
ﺱ
- s (
sel, saqal
)
18.
ﺵ
-
š (
aš
)
19.
ت
- t (
tal
)
20.
ﯞ
- v (
av, ƣav
)
21.
ﺧ
- x (
xatin
)
22.
ي
- y (
ay, yay, ayl
)
23.
ﮊ
-
ƶ (
muƶda
)
24.
‘
- apostrophe
(
Source: Jamolkhonov, p. 49
)
Vowel Analysis by N. Yangibayeva
N. Yangibayeva highlights that the project includes
12 long vowels (choʻzg‘i) divided into two groups:
paired (jub)
and
unpaired
vowels. She notes that
the alphabet proposed for vowels in this project
significantly differs from earlier versions. The
following letters are recommended for vowels:
1.
ä
-
ە
(
gäl, sämän
)
2.
ö
-
ۇ
(
köl, özbek
)
3.
ü
-
ﻭ
(
sür, büiyräk
)
4.
iy
-
ﻱ
(
murakkab tiymäk, kiymäk
)
5.
a
-
ٵ
(
at, taş
)
6.
o
-
ﻭ
(
toq, qol
)
7.
u
-
ۇ
(
cuv
)
8.
כ
-
ﺩ
(
q
כ
n, q
כ
ymä
)
(
Source: Yangibayeva, p. 27
)
Vowels According to M. Bogdanova
M. Bogdanova presents the vowels from this
project in a slightly different manner, further
elaborating on the specific phonetic distinctions
and markers used for their representation. Her
detailed analysis highlights the complexity and
variability in the vowel representation efforts.
(Details from Bogdanova’s analysis can be
expanded upon if needed.)
According to N. Yangibayeva (p. 27),
Vowels
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
230
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Eșlik
Eșsiz
ﺍ
- a
ﻩ
- a
ﻭ
- o
ؤ
- o
ﻭ
- u
ﯗ
- u
ئ
- i
ي
- i
ﯸ
- iy
ﻴﻴ
- iy
Consonants
v
ﺐ
s
ﭼ
d
ﺩ
f
ﻓ
g
ﮒ
h
ﻫ
ҫ
ﺟ
k
ﻙ
l
ﻝ
m
ﻡ
n
ﻥ
ng
ﯓ
p
ﭖ
q
ﻕ
ƣ
ﻍ
r
ﺮ
s
ﺱ
ș
ﺵ
t
ﺕ
v
ﯞ
x
ﺧ
z
ﺰ
Regarding the Projects Presented by
Specialists
The following observations can be made about the
proposed projects:
-
In H. Jamolkhonov's project, vowels
are categorized as
thick
and
soft
, but in the
original version of the project, they are labeled as
hard
and
loose
vowels.
-
N. Yangibayeva's vowel list excludes
i
and
e
, although her appendix may include them.
However, she states that 12 long vowels are
presented.
-
In M. Bogdanova's version, vowels
are classified as
thick (strong)
and
soft (weak)
vowels.
-
Interestingly, M. Bogdanova uses the
same symbols for both types of vowels, with
distinctions only apparent in the Arabic script
representation.
-
For the explosive "j" sound, H.
Jamolkhonov uses the
j
letter, whereas M.
Bogdanova employs
ҫ
.
-
In H. Jamolkhonov's project, the "sh"
sound is represented by the
š
letter with a diacritic
ˇ
above it, while M. Bogdanova places the diacritic
below the letter.
-
In H. Jamolkhonov's project, the
mixed "j" sound (
ﮊ
) is represented by
ƶ
, while in M.
Bogdanova's project,
z
is used exclusively for the
explosive "j" sound (
ﺟ
).
-
The number of consonants is
consistent between the two projects.
Criticism of the Projects
N. Yangibayeva highlights the following
shortcomings in the projects:
"...The proliferation of diacritical marks
(e.g., two dots) in letters creates difficulties in
printing. The
iy
digraph is also problematic,
particularly for back vowels, where the use of
ɔ
(in
transcription) for a long vowel is hard to
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
231
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
comprehend. Additionally, the proposal to include
the
uv
digraph as an unpaired vowel alongside
e
is
not scientifically substantiated." (
Yangibayeva, pp.
26
–
27
)
Observations on Consonant Representation
Despite the improvements in consonant design,
this project still has its advantages and drawbacks:
-
In the previous project, a single
letter
z
was used for both
ﮊ
(fricative) and
ﺟ
(mixed) consonants. In the new project, separate
letters were assigned:
j
for
ﺟ
and
ƶ
for
ﮊ
. However,
using separate letters for these two sounds may
not be justified since words containing
ﮊ
in Uzbek
are rare. Moreover, the adoption of
ƶ
for
ﮊ
is
considered unsuccessful.
-
Similarly, the decision to use
z
for
ﻏ
("g‘") is also problematic.
-
For
ك
(ƞ)
("ng"), the use of the
ng
digraph deviates from the principle of assigning
one shape to one letter. In this regard, the earlier
project had a more consistent approach.
-
In the previous project,
з
was used
for
ﺵ
("sh"), which led to serious debates. In the
new project, the use of
ș
, as in other Turkic
languages, is considered more successful.
-
In the earlier project,
j
was used for
ی
(y)
, but in the new project,
y
is used, which is
correct since
j
represents the "j" sound in the Latin
script, while
y
corresponds to
й
in the current
Uzbek alphabet.
-
The adoption of
j
for
ﺟ
in the current
project is appropriate.
-
The inclusion of the apostrophe (
'
)
in the new project enhances the orthographic
system.
Influence of Tatar Linguistics
A natural question arises: from where did the
Jadids derive the
iy
and
ïy
digraphs? As noted
earlier, the Jadids maintained close connections
with Tatar linguists regarding alphabet and
orthography reforms. Figures like Fitrat, Elbek,
and Qayum Ramazon relied on the works of Tatar
linguists such as Olimjon Ibrahimov, Jamoliddin
Validiy, and Fotih Sayfi for inspiration when
writing textbooks and guides. They also adopted
theoretical concepts and scientific terminology
from these sources.
Tatar linguists like Fotih Sayfi, A. Sa'diy, and Sh.
Ahmadiy shared their experiences with Uzbek
linguists. At that time, Tatar linguists were divided
into several schools of thought, with some
advocating for eight vowels, others for six, and yet
others for ten vowels. Among them, the "ten-vowel
school" proposed that the
iy
and
uv
diphthongs be
included in the list of vowels, bringing the total to
ten. Inspired by this group, the Jadids incorporated
these vowels into the Uzbek alphabet
(
Bobomurodova, p. 132
).
About the Booklet
“Foundations for Developing
the New Uzbek Alphabet”
On August 27
–
29, 1926, a subsequent meeting of
the Scientific Center was held to discuss a new
alphabet project. This meeting focused on the
recommendations made by the May conference
and the new alphabet project approved during the
Scientific Center's meeting on August 11, under the
Uzbek People's Commissariat of Education. After
analyzing the shortcomings in both projects, a
more refined and scientifically grounded project
was adopted.
The materials for this project were compiled by
Abdulla Alaviy and published as a booklet titled
“Foundations for Developing the New Uzbek
Alphabet”
in 1927. The project, though
comprehensive and scientifically sound, contained
some debatable aspects. It was intended to serve
as Uzbekistan's final proposal to the upcoming
Congress of Turkology in Baku. Abdulla Alaviy
himself emphasized this in his article
“The New
Project (Supporting the Scientific
Center’s Project)”
published in the
Education and Teacher
journal,
Issue 6, 1926:
"...The Scientific Center will soon convene a council
meeting involving representatives from all over
Uzbekistan to discuss this issue. The project
adopted there will be presented at the Congress of
Turkic Alphabets in Baku in September. We hope
that a unified decision regarding the alphabet will
be reached among Turkic peoples." (
Jamolkhonov
II, p. 56
)
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
232
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
In the booklet itself, it is stated:
"...the decision on the Uzbek Latin script is based
on strong scientific foundations, and the
'Conference for Unifying Alphabets' to be held in
Baku will rule in favor of the Uzbek Latinists in this
matter." (
Foundations for Developing the New
Uzbek Alphabet
)
Key Features of the Project
1.
Influence of Azerbaijani Experience
The project heavily relied on Azerbaijani practices,
attempting to directly adopt their forms. Abdulla
Alaviy noted:
"To avoid diverging from Azerbaijan, their vowels
were adopted exactly. However, for some sounds,
a more scientific approach was taken, slightly
differing from Azerbaijan." (
Jamolkhonov II, p. 55
)
2.
Classification of Sounds. The project
divided sounds into two groups: vowels (sayitlar)
and consonants (somtlar). Terms such as
"avazlar,"
"choʻzg‘i harf
lar,"
and
"hurufe samt-
hurufe sayt"
were used to describe vowels and
consonants, influenced by Azerbaijani, Tatar, and
Turkish linguistics.
3.
Vowel Harmony. The project
acknowledged the principle of vowel harmony
(
singarmonizm
), stating: "As in all Turkic dialects,
Uzbek also follows the law of vowel harmony:
suffixes attached to thick words are also thick,
while those attached to thin words are thin. This
law, called
singarmonizm
in linguistics, has
partially disappeared in urban areas due to Persian
influence."
Categorization of Dialects: Dialects were classified
based on the degree of Persian influence:
Highly Persianized: Samarkand dialect
–
6 vowels.
Moderately Persianized: Tashkent dialect
–
6
vowels. Slightly Persianized: Fergana city dialect
–
7
–
8 vowels. Minimal Persianization: Andijan
dialect
–
9 vowels.
4.
Criticism of the Tashkent
Dialect as a Standard. While Professor Polivanov
proposed using the Tashkent dialect as the literary
standard, local scholars opposed this idea. Elbek
strongly criticized it, arguing that: "...The Tashkent
dialect cannot serve as the basis for Uzbek literary
language as it represents only a small fraction of
the population and fails to align with the majority’s
linguistic heritage."
Recommended Vowels
The project proposed nine vowels, grouped as
follows:
ا
(a-alif):
at, tal, qalgʻan
ه
(ə
-hayi-havvaz):
mən, səmən, tən
ى
(e-ya):
yer, sel, ter
و
(o-vav):
qol, yol, tor
و
(ö-vav):
köl, cöl, tör
و
(u-vav):
qul, ur, tuz
و
(ü-vav):
kyl, yr, tyz
ي
(ь
-ya):
q
ь
l, x
ь
l, al
ь
m
ي
(i-ya):
sil, til, bilim
Innovations and Debates
1.
Adoption of Cyrillic Influences
Some letters, such as ь, were adapted from Cyrillic
as a shortened form of the Russian ы rather than
as a "soft sign."
2.
Controversy Over Diphthongs
Diphthongs like uv-yv and iy-
ьy spark
ed intense
debates. Ultimately, these were classified as
compound sounds (vowel + consonant), and the
project opted for representations like uv, yv, iy, ьy.
3.
Scientific Basis for Forms
The selection of symbols was guided by two
principles: Ease of Writing. Alignment with Other
Turkic Alphabets
Consequently, the shapes ä and ö were replaced
with Azerbaijani ə and ө for simplicity and
consistency with international phonetic standards.
4.
Preservation of Vowel Length
The project highlighted the historical presence of
long vowels in Turkic languages, asserting their
phonological significance.
Legacy
About the Booklet
“Foundations for Developing
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
233
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
the New Uzbek Alphabet”
Q. Mahmudov notes that primary long vowels in
Turkic words were sporadically represented
graphically in the first syllable and were marked
with special symbols in some positions in the
Orkhon-Yenisei
inscriptions.
For
instance,
Mahmud Kashgari denoted the long
a
vowel with
double
alif
, the long
i
vowel with double
alif kasra
,
and the long
u
vowel with an
alif
and double
vav
(
Ne’matov, p. 25
).
The booklet discusses these long vowels,
mentioning that they have been preserved in
Karachay, Turkmen, and Yakut languages, as well
as in certain Uzbek dialects, such as Karabuloq. It
states:
"Previously, the ancient Turkic language contained
long sounds like
o:
and
a:
. These sounds are still
preserved in some Turkic dialects (e.g., Karachay,
Turkmen, and Yakut dialects) and in certain Uzbek
dialects, such as the Karabuloq dialect. There are
distinctions between words like
o:d
(fire),
ot
(grass) or
a:d
(name), and
at
(stallion)."
(
Foundations for Developing the New Uzbek
Alphabet
, p. 12)
The phenomenon of vowel length resulting from
the dropping of consonants (
g, g‘, y, h
) in the
middle or end of words is also noted. For example:
bӣz
(needle,
bigiz
)
kӣz
(felt,
kigiz
)
qӣn
(difficulty,
qiyin
) (
Ne’matov, p. 25
)
The booklet also mentions how such
phenomena occur when two syllables merge, as
seen in Kyrgyz, where vowel length distinguishes
meanings:
yer
(ground) vs.
ye:r
(saddle)
Insights on Diphthongs
The booklet discusses diphthongs, clarifying that
Uzbek lacks diphthongs in the strict phonemic
sense. Instead, these are tightly pronounced
adjacent vowels within a single syllable.
Diphthongs are described as:
"The combination of two vowels within a single
syllable."
In Uzbek, the second component of diphthongs is
usually a semivowel derived from a voiced
consonant, assimilated by the preceding vowel.
The two semivowels
v
and
y
are identified as
significant contributors to this phenomenon
(
Mirtojiyev, pp. 80
–
85
).
The Jadids referred to diphthongs as "compound
vowels" (
chifta sayitalar
), explaining:
"In these cases, thin vowels are combined with
adjacent
v
or
j
sounds, forming words like
av, aj, oj,
as well as
uv (suv), ьj (ij).
For example, the word
suv
originated as
su,
with the
v
sound described by
Mahmud al-Kashgari as lying between
v
and
f
, akin
to the Ottoman Turkish
vazn
. Over time, this sound
was recognized as consonantal but retained
certain vowel-like qualities." (
Foundations for
Developing the New Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 13)
This interpretation aligns closely with modern
linguistic views on Uzbek phonology.
Representation of Long Vowels
The booklet critiques the representation of long
vowels in Hungarian and Finnish, where they are
denoted with double letters (e.g.,
oo
,
aa
),
suggesting that the Yakut-style notation (
o:
,
a:
) is
more appropriate. Current Uzbek linguistics
similarly employs
a:
or
ā
to denote long vowels in
phonetic studies (
Abdurahmonov, Ne’matov,
Mahmudov, Mirtojiyev, Jamolkhonov
).
Simplification Principles in Alphabet Design
The authors of the project adhered to the principle
of simplicity, following the rule of "one sound, one
symbol." They avoided the use of complex letters
or diacritical marks, emphasizing practicality in
writing. On this, the booklet states:
"The goal was to ensure that the alphabet would be
accessible and functional, avoiding unnecessary
complexity or deviation from international
practices."
This approach was instrumental in aligning the
Uzbek alphabet with broader linguistic and
pedagogical standards while maintaining its
unique cultural and phonetic characteristics.
"1. Writing should be as conducive as possible to
analysis, meaning that it should be divided into its
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
234
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
basic elements wherever possible. Letters that
represent multiple sounds (such as the Greek
letter
is
, which exemplifies false economy) should
be avoided. 2. The number of letters should not be
excessive but as minimal as possible."
(
Foundations for Developing the New Uzbek
Alphabet
, p. 15).
Consonants
The booklet does not provide explanations for the
letters
f, d, h, j, e, m, n, p, r, s, t, z
, as these are
already used in the Latin alphabet with the same
meanings. It states that there is no need to
scientifically justify their inclusion in the Uzbek
alphabet. However, the selection of the following
letters is explained:
For the sound
ۉ
, the
v
shape was chosen instead of
the
w
used in the Latin alphabet. The rationale for
this decision is as follows:
Graphical economy and simplicity
: While it is
customary in Europe to use
v
for labiodental
sounds and
w
for bilabial sounds, such a
distinction does not exist in Uzbek. The language
contains only a single bilabial sound,
ۉ
. Therefore,
either letter could suffice, but
v
was chosen for
simplicity.
Indeed, linguists have noted that these two sounds
are not distinguished in Uzbek. For example, H.
Ne’matov states that
v
(labiodental) and
v
(bilabial) were not characteristic of ancient Turkic
languages and instead emerged in later
developmental stages, derived from
b
and
g‘
sounds in the middle and end of words (
Ne’matov,
pp. 63
–
64
).
Similarly, Q. Sodiqov, who studied Turkic written
monuments, supports this view (
Sodiqov, p. 122
).
Additionally, G‘. Abdurahmonov and A. Rustamov
observe that only the bilabial
v
is used in Alisher
Navoiy's works (
Abdurahmonov, p. 17
).
Thus, the choice of
v
by the project authors is
scientifically sound and well-founded.
For the
خ
sound in Uzbek, the
x
shape from the
Cyrillic alphabet was adopted because the Latin
alphabet does not have a character to represent
this sound. Additionally, the fact that the
Azerbaijani alphabet also uses the same shape was
another reason for this choice, as explained by the
project authors.
Regarding the Letters c (
چ
) and ƶ (
ج
):
Since the Latin alphabet lacks letters to represent
the sounds
چ
and
ج
, the commission faced two
options:
1.
To represent these sounds with multiple
letters, as in
ch
in English or
tsch
in German.
2.
To create new letters or assign new
shapes or meanings to existing letters, similar to
ŝ
and
ĉ
in the international phonetic alphabet. These
letters were created by adding a diacritic (ˇ) to
s
and
c
to produce
š
and
č
.
The project participants rejected the first option,
adhering to their principle of “one sound, one
letter.” They explained their de
cision as follows:
"The approach taken by the conference was highly
fundamental and scientific, adhering to the
principle of 'one sound, one letter.' Even for the
sound
ڬ
, the scientific center's proposed
ng
was
rejected because it consisted of two letters.
Instead, the newly designed single letter
ꞑ
was
adopted." (
Foundations for Developing the New
Uzbek Alphabet
, pp. 19
–
20).
The participants decided to use the letter
c
for the
sound
چ
. This decision aligned with several other
projects, including the alphabet developed under
the Eastern Nations Publishing House in Moscow,
the scientific alphabet created by linguists and
Turkologists at the Russian Academy of Sciences,
the Yakut alphabet, and several other Turkic
language alphabets. However, it differed from the
Azerbaijani alphabet, which used
c
for
ج
and
ç
for
چ
.
Yakut Influence on the Choice of c for
چ
The Yakuts were among the first Turkic peoples to
use
c
for
چ
. Their alphabet, designed by
Novgorodov, was based on principles from the
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). In the IPA,
c
and
s
represent
dz
and
ts
sounds, with diacritic
marks (ˇ) added to represent
č
and
š
for
ج
and
چ
.
However, in the Yakut alphabet, these diacritics
were omitted, and
c
and
z
were used instead.
Following the Yakut example, the Uzbek alphabet
conference adopted
c
for
چ
without the diacritic
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
235
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
mark. Using
č
for
ج
would have violated the
conference's design principles, as diacritic marks
contradicted their foundational rules.
Azerbaijani Approach to
ج
and
چ
Azerbaijani scholars chose
c
for
ج
and
ç
for
چ
because the Latin alphabetical order aligned with
the Arabic script’s sequence. For example:
ج
→
c
ب
→
b
ا
→
a
This choice reflected a preference for maintaining
consistency between the Latin and Arabic
alphabets. However, this approach was considered
innovative and specific to the "New Path" alphabet,
designed by Azerbaijani scholars in 1922 under
the "New Turkic Alphabet Committee" in Baku.
This innovation was not observed in other Latin-
based Turkic alphabets.
Conclusion on c for
چ
and ƶ for
ج
While the Yakut and Leningrad alphabets
influenced the adoption of
c
for
چ
, the Uzbek
project took a unique approach by selecting
ƶ
for
ج
.
This decision was based on the Azerbaijani
alphabet
’
s use of
ƶ
for
ژ
, as well as the fact that
ژ
did not have a significant role in Uzbek, being
primarily found in foreign words. The booklet
notes:
"For example, the word
لانروژ
(journal) is
pronounced as
لانروج
(djurnal) by most people.
Words containing
ژ
are rare, so there is no
significant need for a separate letter to represent
this sound." (
Foundations for Developing the New
Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 19).
However, while the selection of
ƶ
for
ج
was
scientifically justified, it proved impractical.
Consequently, at the 1929 Baku conference,
ç
was
adopted for
ج
as part of the unified Turkic
alphabet.
On k (
ك
) and q (
ﻕ
)
For
ق
, the letter
q
was adopted, and for
ك
,
k
was
chosen. The authors noted that no other options
were available in the Latin script to represent
these sounds. This decision aligned with other
Turkic language projects using the Latin alphabet.
ج
ب
ا
c
b
a.
When discussing the alphabetical similarities, it is
noted that all languages originate from a single
source
—
the Phoenician language (
Foundations
for Developing the New Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 18).
Regarding the Azerbaijani scholars' adoption of
c
for the sound
ج
, it is stated that there was no
precedent for this approach in the writing systems
of nations using the Latin script. This innovation is
considered the invention of those who designed
the "New Path" alphabet. Notably, in May 1922, the
"New Turkic Alphabet" committee was established
in Baku by Azerbaijani intellectuals. The "New
Path" newspaper, published by this committee,
presented the alphabet project (
Ibrahimov, p. 41;
Bilal N. Şimşir, p. 6
).
After the Azerbaijani authors chose
c
for
ج
, they
adopted
ç
for
چ
, influenced by the similarity
between
ج
and
چ
in the Arabic script. This
Azerbaijani innovation is noted as being absent in
other alphabets. The booklet also provides
information on the use of
c
in French, where it
represents
ﺱ
, and in the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA), where it denotes a sound between
ۇک
and
ۇس
.
Additionally, details are given about how
c
is used
in various languages:
1.
In medieval Latin pronunciation,
c
before
e
and
i
represents
s
(as in
ست
).
2.
In classical Latin,
c
represents
g
before
all vowels, while in medieval Latin, it represents
g
before
a, o, u
.
3.
In Italian,
c
before
e, i
is pronounced as
چ
, and in French, it represents
ﺱ
(
Foundations for
Developing the New Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 19).
The Karachays, like the Azerbaijanis, adopted
c
for
ج
and
ç
for
چ
. However, while the project authors
followed the Yakut and Leningrad alphabets in
choosing
c
for
چ
, they took a distinct approach for
ج
, selecting
ƶ
for this sound. The reasoning behind
this choice is explained as follows: the Azerbaijani
alphabet used
ƶ
for the sound
ﮊ
, and the project did
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
236
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
not assign a separate letter for
ﮊ
. This was because
ﮊ
was rarely pronounced by the majority, except
for scholars familiar with other languages or
speakers of certain dialects. The booklet explains:
"For instance, most people pronounce the word
ﻝانرﻭﮊ
(journal) as
ﻝانروﺟ
(djurnal). Words
containing
ﮊ
are not numerous, so there is no
significant need for a dedicated letter to represent
it." (
Foundations for Developing the New Uzbek
Alphabet
, p. 19). Indeed, the sliding
j
sound in Old
Turkic appeared only in imitative words, and in
Old Uzbek, it was used exclusively in Persian
loanwords. Its more widespread use in Uzbek was
due to the direct influence of the Russian language
(
Ne’matov, p. 65
). From this perspective, the Jadids'
scientific reasoning was valid. However, the
selection of
ƶ
for
ج
proved unsuccessful.
Consequently, at the 1929 Baku Congress, where a
unified Turkic alphabet was adopted,
ç
was chosen
for
ج
.
On k (
ك
) and q (
ﻕ
):
The project authors adopted
q
for
ﻕ
and
k
for
ك
, noting that there were no other
shapes in the Latin alphabet used by nations that
employ these sounds. They justified their choice by
aligning with the following systems:
1.
The International Phonetic Alphabet
(IPA) and widely accepted European academic
transcription systems. In these systems, the letter
k consistently represents the deep front sound
ﻙ
,
while q represents the deep back sound
ﻕ
. This
standard originates from the Latin script itself. In
ancient Latin, k often substituted for c, with s
always representing the non-deep
ﻙ
, and q
denoting the deep
ﻕ
.
2.
The Yakut alphabet.
3.
The Leningrad scientific project and
several other proposals.
In this matter, only the Karachays diverged,
following the Azerbaijani alphabet by using
k
for
ﻕ
and
q
for
ك
. Thus, the project authors did not align
with their Azerbaijani colleagues in selecting these
letters. They also explained their reasoning for not
adopting the Azerbaijani approach:
"While the Yakuts based their choices on an
international phonetic alphabet, Azerbaijan did
not rely on any phonetic transcription system.
Instead, Russian and French alphabetic influences
played a significant role. (Overall, it is evident that
the 'New Path' alphabet was heavily influenced by
the Russian script; for instance, their adoption of
ٶ
for
u
demonstrates this.) Their choice of
q
for
ك
likely stemmed from the French name for this
letter,
qu
. Presumably, they adopted this approach
and then reversed
k
for
ﻕ
. This rationale, of course,
is very weak. We anticipate that the 'New Path'
view on this matter will be revised at the upcoming
'Conference for Alphabet Unification' in Baku."
(
Foundations for Developing the New Uzbek
Alphabet
, p. 21).
On g (
ﮒ
) and g
‘ (
غ
)
The voiced back-of-the-tongue sounds
ﮒ
and
ﻍ
posed significant challenges for experts in
assigning corresponding Latin script letters. While
ﻕ
and
ﻙ
were represented as
q
and
k
in the Latin
alphabet, no specific letters existed for
ﻍ
and
ﮒ
.
The authors of the project, relying on the intrinsic
meaning of Latin letters and their pronunciation in
derived writing systems, opted for the use of
g
to
represent
ﮒ
. Although in French and English, this
letter represents a
k
sound only before the vowels
o
,
a
, and
u
and is read as
ﮊ
(
j
) in French and
ﺝ
(
c
) in
English before other vowels, it consistently
represents
ﻙ
(
k
) in German, Finnish, Estonian,
Hungarian, and Latin scripts.
For the
ﻍ
sound, some experts suggested adopting
a letter combination similar to the French
ch-
for
ﺵ
(
sh
), but the majority opposed this, as it violated
the conference principle of "one sound
–
one
letter." Similarly, the forms ĝ and ğ, created with
the
v
mark, were rejected due to their complexity
and the difficulties they posed in writing. After
extensive debate, the ƣ form was chosen. This
character appears in the written form of the
ancient German
g‘ut
script and is used in the
Azerbaijani alphabet, though in the latter case, it
represents
ﮒ
rather than
ﻍ
. Therefore, in the Uzbek
alphabet, it was deemed correct and justified to use
g
for the shallow back-of-the-tongue
k
sound and ƣ
for the deep back-of-the-tongue
q
sound.
On ŋ (
ڬ
)
The sound ŋ (
ڬ
) also became a subject of intense
debate among the project authors. Some argued
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
237
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
that it was a complex sound and noted that in
German and English, it is represented by the letter
combination
ng
. They proposed using the same
approach as in those languages. However, the
majority of Jadids emphasized that in Turkic
dialects with vowel harmony, this sound is simple
and does not separate into
n
and
g
. They stated:
"Some colleagues claim that this sound is complex.
This may be true for certain assimilated dialects,
but even then, it is not universal. For example, in
Tashkent, the word
yangi
('new') may sound
complex, but in words like
yiğ
('to cry') or
kiğ
('to
laugh'), it is simple. In vowel-harmonic dialects, it
is always simple. For instance, in syllables like
qal-
di-
ŋiz
or
kel-di-
ŋiz
(‘you have come’), this sound is
simple. Its simplicity can also be demonstrated by
showing how, in modern Istanbul dialects, it has
transformed
into
n
."
(
Fundamentals
of
Constructing the New Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 22).
Therefore, they deemed it appropriate to adopt the
ŋ form used in the Azerbaijani alphabet, the
International Phonetic Alphabet, and the Yakut
script. The Jadids insisted on assigning a separate
letter for this sound in the alphabet, a decision
widely praised since linguists acknowledged it as
one of the oldest sounds in the Turkic languages
(Ne'matov, p. 65; Mahmudov, p. 66).
During the conference, some specialists proposed
creating a separate letter for the
غڬ
(ng
‘)
sound,
citing examples like
dutarim diŋilladi
(‘my dut
ar
resonated’) or
eshagim diŋilladi
(‘my donkey
resonated’). However, this proposal was rejected.
The opposition reasoned that if this were accepted,
it would necessitate introducing separate letters
for distinctions like the thick
l
in
tal
(‘field’) and t
he
thin
l
in
til
(‘language’), which would complicate
the alphabet unnecessarily. The existence of such
variations in Kipchak dialects has been noted in
scholarly literature (Mirtojiyev, pp. 78
–
79).
The prominent writer Abdulla Qodiriy used the
"ng‘" lette
r combination to represent this sound in
his novel
Mehrobdan Chayon
. He explained:
"Since Khudoyorkhan grew up among Kipchaks,
his Uzbek speech reflects this. The
ng
sound in
enalaring
('your mothers') is pronounced thickly
as
ng‘
. This thick
ng‘
can still be heard among
modern Ferghana Uzbeks, especially in rural areas,
where it is used instead of the soft
ng
. However,
our current reformed alphabet lacks a specific
letter for this thick
ng‘
. Although combining the
letters
n-
g‘
creates the sound, readers might
mispronounce it, as each person would interpret it
differently. This thick
ng‘
is not limited to a few
words in Uzbek but is used in many (dozens of)
words, necessitating the adoption of a distinct
character, in my opinion. For example, common
words include:
zang‘
,
pang‘
,
lang‘
,
darang‘
,
qalang‘i
-
qasang‘i
,
dang‘
,
toʻng‘uz
('pig'),
shang‘i
,
toʻng‘
,
toʻng‘uch
('firstborn'),
ang‘iz
,
ting‘
, among
others. The old
ning
was reformed as
ng
. Perhaps
this thick
ng‘
could also be written with the letter
g‘
marked with three dots." (Qodiriy, p. 346).
On
з
(
ﺵ
)
The project authors addressed the reasons for
selecting the letter
з
to represent the sound
ﺵ
,
emphasizing the absence of a specific letter for this
sound in both Latin and Greek scripts. In modern
European languages, this sound is represented by
various combinations of letters, such as
ch
in
French,
sh
in English,
sch
in Latin, and
sz
in Polish.
However, instead of adopting such multi-character
representations, the authors decided to create a
new character.
The letter
š
, used in the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA), was not chosen due to its
complexity in writing, and similarly, the Russian
letter
ш
was also deemed unsuitable for the same
reason. Consequently, the shape
з
, which is
employed in the Azerbaijani alphabet, was adopted
for this sound (
Fundamentals of Constructing the
New Uzbek Alphabet
, p. 24).
As this example illustrates, the Jadid intellectuals
extensively referred to numerous sources when
selecting letters for Uzbek sounds. They analyzed
the strengths and weaknesses of these systems
before finalizing their choices.
M. Bogdanova critiqued the shortcomings of these
projects, noting the following:
"The projects presented by the Uzbeks (the May,
Scientific Center, and August projects) were not
constructed on a single principle. Essentially, the
distinction between the thick and thin variants of
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
238
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
vowels was acknowledged. Instead of assigning
separate symbols for thick and thin series in
consonants, a single set of consonant letters was
proposed. Words' thick or thin nature was
indicated by vowels, except for a few consonants
like
q-k
and
ƣ
-g
. For vowels, however, distinct
letters were provided for thick and thin series.
Thus, vowels served as differentiators for
consonants. The vowels clarified the sound
structure and meanings of words.
There were no significant disagreements
regarding the consonant inventory, which
comprised 23 sounds across all the projects.
Although all the projects were based on dialects
with vowel harmony, they differed significantly in
the inventory of vowels."
Bogdanova's critique highlighted the diverse
approaches taken in the projects and the
challenges of achieving consistency across the
proposed alphabets.
The Alphabet Adopted at the 1927 Samarkand
Conference
On May 28, 1927, a New Alphabet Council was
convened in Samarkand at the initiative of the
Uzbekistan Commissariat of Education. This
council, organized on a Central Asian scale,
included representatives from Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan. Over the course of two days, the
council addressed the issue of creating a unified
alphabet based on the new alphabets of the Turkic
peoples of Central Asia. The council relied on the
following principles for the unified new alphabet:
1.
Unified
Letters
for
Shared
Sounds:
Letters (characters) for sounds common to all
Central Asian peoples were unified.
2.
Distinct Letters for Unique
Sounds:
Sounds specific to a particular language were
assigned unique letters, and these letters were
incorporated into the shared alphabet. For
instance, while Uzbek and Kyrgyz have the sound
ﺵ
(
z
), Kazakh substitutes it with
ﺱ
(
s
). A separate
letter was adopted for this sound. Similarly, the
letter
ﺥ
(
x
) exists in Uzbek but not in Kyrgyz;
however, the shape (
x
) for this sound was included
in the shared alphabet.
3.
Economizing Letters Based on
Harmony
Laws:
Recognizing that the phonological rule of vowel
harmony (thick vs. thin vowels) exists in all Turkic
languages of Central Asia, the council economized
in assigning letters. Only thick sounds were given
unique shapes, while their thin counterparts were
marked with a special symbol to indicate thinness.
This approach economized on characters: five
shapes (letters) were used for nine vowels, and 23
shapes (letters) for 39 consonants, resulting in a
total of 28 letters.
4.
Principles for Selecting Letters:
a) Shapes for sounds were derived strictly from the
Latin alphabet, or alphabets based on it, if not
directly available in Latin.
b) Letters were selected to match the sounds they
represented in Latin.
c) Care was taken to avoid similarities between
letters.
d) Diacritics (dots or marks above or below letters)
were avoided as much as possible.
e) No complex shapes were assigned to a single
sound.
f) For simplicity and cost-effectiveness in
education, a single shape was adopted for each
letter, meaning lowercase letters were used for
both uppercase and lowercase forms, as well as for
printed and handwritten versions.
A single symbol, the "thinness marker" (
v
), was
used to indicate the thin (soft) variant of thick
sounds. This marker was placed at the beginning of
soft words but was omitted when the softness was
visually apparent (e.g., in words like
k
,
g
, or
e
-initial
words, which are inherently soft) (Jamolkhonov II,
p. 88).
Alphabet Adopted at the Conference:
On May 28-29, 1927, the representatives of Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz republics at the council in
Samarkand agreed upon this unified alphabet.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
239
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
a
b
ƶ
(j)
d
e
q
γ (gʻ)
k
g
i
l
m
n
ŋ
(ng)
o
p
r
s
z (sh)
t
u
c (ch)
z
y
v
x
h
f
v
The
Thinness
Marker
‘
apostrof
In the May, August, and Scientific Council projects,
the principle of vowel harmony (singarmonizm)
was considered only for consonants. However, in
the Central Asian Council project, this principle
was also applied to vowels. This allowed nine
vowel sounds to be represented using just five
letters:
a
= a, ə
o
= o
u
= u, y
i
= ь, i
e
In July 1927, the first plenary session of the
Commission on the Latinization of Common Turkic
Scripts was convened in Baku. During this plenary,
the scripts of Turkic peoples living across the
Soviet Union were unified. Previously, the various
projects based on Latin script hindered the
collective efforts of Soviet Turkic peoples.
However, unifying the script alone was
insufficient; a unified orthography was also
necessary.
The first plenary session aimed to create a unified
orthography based on phonetics while also
partially considering morphology. The project
developed during the plenary session adhered to
the following principles:
1.
The principle of vowel harmony
(singarmonizm) was applied only to consonants
when creating the alphabet.
2.
For vowels, the application of the
vowel harmony principle was left to the needs and
preferences of individual peoples.
3.
Letters were standardized in four
forms: uppercase, lowercase, printed, and
handwritten. The Uzbeks, however, opted to use
only lowercase printed and handwritten forms,
excluding uppercase letters.
4.
Since the Latin alphabet lacked
sufficient characters to accommodate Turkic
phonetics, additional characters suitable for Turkic
phonetics were introduced.
5.
The shapes of the letters were
designed to be distinct from one another.
6.
The letters were made simple and
straightforward.
7.
The design of the letters was made
compatible with printing technologies.
8.
Proposed new letters were made to
resemble the forms of the existing Latin alphabet
as closely as possible.
The unified new Turkic alphabet approved by the first plenary session:
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
240
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Aa
ﺄ
Bv
ﺐ
Cs
ﺝ
Ҫҫ
ﭺ
Dd
ﺩ
Ee
ي
Əǝ
ﻩ
Ff
ﻑ
Gg
ﮒ
Hh
ﻫ
Ii
ئ
ь
ي
Jj
ﻱ
Kk
ﻙ
Ll
ﻝ
Mm
ﻡ
Nn
ﻥ
Ɲƞ
ﯓ
Oo
ﻭ
Ѳѳ
ﯗ
Pp
ﭖ
ﻕ
Ƣƣ
ﻍ
Rr
ﺮ
Ss
ﺱ
Șș
ﺵ
Tt
ﺕ
Uu
ؤ
Vv
ﯞ
Xx
ﺧ
Uu
ﻭ
Zz
ﺰ
Ƶƶ
ﮊ
‘
apostrof
ьj
-ij
uv-
yv
M. Bogdanova noted that the unified new Turkic
alphabet was based on dialects with vowel
harmony. It included 23 letters for consonants and
9 letters for vowels. From a graphical perspective,
the new alphabet did not solely rely on the Latin
script but also incorporated elements from several
other scripts. In terms of the meaning assigned to
the letters, their significance differed significantly
from their original (primary) meanings. Due to
these factors, the international value of the new
Turkic alphabet was considerably diminished, as
highlighted by Bogdanova.
CONCLUSION
The creation of several independent alphabet
projects during the transition to the Latin script
demonstrates that the Jadids were deeply invested
in developing a comprehensive national alphabet.
These alphabet projects were actively discussed in
the press and at various conferences, with errors
and shortcomings being systematically corrected.
The Jadid educational reformers referred to the
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), the
scientific transcription methods of Leningrad
scholars, as well as the English, German, French,
and Italian languages. Their awareness of Russian
and European linguistics is also highlighted in this
context, which counters the claim that Uzbek
linguistics was underdeveloped during the Jadid
era.
Analyzing the principles adopted by the council in
creating a unified alphabet for Uzbek, Kazakh, and
Kyrgyz intellectuals reveals that qualified
specialists were involved, and the established
criteria were based on scientific grounds. Notably,
efforts were made to avoid placing dots or marks
above or below letters, to prevent letters from
resembling each other, and to consider the specific
features of all languages
—
a particularly
commendable approach.
Regardless of whether this alphabet was fully
adopted, the mere effort to promote regional unity
and collaboration at that time was a highly
significant and positive development.
REFERENCES
1.
Adabi tl vǝ imla toƣrisida maqala va qararlar
(1934). II toplam, 1-nci serija. (Toplavci Q.
Ramazan). Tașkent, Ozdavnașr.
2.
Абдулла Қодирий. (2014). Танланган
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE12
241
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
асарлар. Тошкент. Шарқ.
3.
Абдураҳмонов Ғ., Рустамов А. (1984).
Навоий тилининг грамматик хусусиятлари.
Тошкент. Фан.
4.
Bagʻdanova M. (1926). Latin asasida tuzilgan
oʻzbek layihalarining tarixiga bir qarash.
Alanga. № 2, 4, 5
-6.
5.
Bilal N. Şimşir. (1991). Azerbaycan’da türk
alfabesi (tarixçe). Ankara.
6.
Бобомуродова
Ш.
(2002).
Ўзбек
тилшунослиги ривожида Элбекнинг роли.
Филол.фанлари номзоди. дисс. автореф.
Тошкент.
7.
Dil ve alfabe üzerine görüşler (1991). Ankara.
8.
Gʻazi Alim (1927). Oʻzbek tilining tavushlari.
Maa
rif va oʻqitgʻuchi, 12:11
-18.
9.
Жамолхонов Ҳ. (2009). Ўзбек тилининг
назарий фонетикаси. Тошкент.
10.
Жамолхонов Ҳ., Умаров А. (2017). Ўзбек
ёзувининг ХХ аср тарихи. I китоб. Тошкент.
11.
Жамолхонов Ҳ., Умаров А. (2019). Ўзбек
ёзувининг ХХ аср тарихи. II китоб. Тошкент.
12.
Elçin İbrahimov (2018). Azə
rbaycan xalq
cümhuriyy
ə
ti: Dil m
ə
s
ə
l
ə
l
ə
ri. Baki.
13.
Маҳмудов Қ. (2006). Ўзбек тилининг
тарихий фонетикаси. Тошкент.
14.
Жамолхонов Ҳ. (2009). Ўзбек тилининг
назарий фонетикаси. Тошкент.
15.
Маҳмудов Қ. (2006). Ўзбек тилининг
тарихий фонетикаси. Тошкент.
16.
Миртожиев М. (2009). Ўзбек тили
фонетикаси. Тошкент.
17.
Неъматов Ҳ. (1992). Ўзбек тилининг
тарихий фонетикаси. Тошкент.
18.
Нурмонов А. (2012). Танланган асарлар.
Тошкент.
19.
Ramazan Q. (1929). Imlamiz masalasi. Sharq
haqiqati.
–
№ 11, 12.
20.
Сайидов Ё. (2001). Фитрат бадиий асарлари
лексикаси. Филол. фан. номз. ... дисс.
Тошкент.
21.
Sodiqov Q. (2006). Turkiy yozma yodgorliklar
tili: adabiy tilning yuzaga kelishi va tiklanishi.
Toshkent.
22.
Тоғаев Т. (2006). Ашурали Зоҳирий ва унинг
тилшунослик
мероси.
Филол.фанлари
номзоди. дисс. Тошкент.
23.
Фитрат Абдурауф. (2006). Танланган
асарлар, IV жилд. Тошкент.
24.
Худойбердиев Ж. (1998). Тилкаланишдан
тикланишга. Миллий тикланиш. Тошкент.
15:145.
25.
Элбекнинг тилга оид асарлари (2001).
(Тўпловчи: Ш.Бобомуродова).Тошкент.
26.
Янгибaева Н. (2019). ХХ асрнинг 20
-
йилларида ўзбек тилшунослиги жараёни
(“Маориф
ва
ўқитғучи”
журнали
материаллари асосида). Филол. фан. бўйича
фалсафа доктори (PhD) дисс. автореф.
Қарши.
27.
Oʻzbek yangi alifbasini tuzishda asaslar.
(1927). (
Matiriyalardan toʻplab tuzguchi:
Abdulla Alaviy). Samarqand
–
Tashkent.
