# Ottoman Turkish :   تسميه ايتدكاري بوشهر اوتوزبر كوندر



## I.K.S.

Can someone please help with what the author is trying to explain in the first lines, This is from a book called; Yemen seyahatnamesi ve coğrafiya-i nebatisi.
Thank you in advance!


----------



## shafaq

It says "This month that called (zanubah) takes thirty one days.  Aforesaid month's first night which named (   ) has been respected as a seperator between the past and incoming years."

Please note : At first glance I read the very first word as "zanubah" but I think to be more precise it might be read as "Janvie".


----------



## I.K.S.

shafaq said:


> Please note : At first glance I read the very first word as "zanubah" but I think to be more precise it might be read as "Janvie".


Yes it must be 'January' indeed, Thank you!


----------



## analeeh

Yeah, it's janviye (_janvier_). The last word is equivalent to Arabic بحكم.


----------



## Torontal

shafaq said:


> It says "This month that called (zanubah) takes thirty one days.  Aforesaid month's first night which named (   ) has been respected as a seperator between the past and incoming years."
> 
> Please note : At first glance I read the very first word as "zanubah" but I think to be more precise it might be read as "Janvie".



hocam, is this Latin transliteration correct?
_Jânûye _[or_ jânviye_]_ tesmiye ettikleri bu şehr otuzbir gündür. Şehr-i mezkûrun birinci gecesine (....) tesmiye olunur ki, sene-i sâbıka ile sene-i müstakbele hadd-ı fâsıl hükmündedir._


----------



## shafaq

Torontal said:


> hocam, is this Latin transliteration correct?
> _Jânûye _[or_ jânviye_]_ tesmiye *itd*ikleri bu şehr otuzbir gündür. Şehr-i mezkûrun birinci *gi*cesine (....) tesmiye olunur ki, sene-i sâbıka ile sene-i müstakbele *arasında* hadd-ı fâsıl hükmündedir._


...........


----------



## Torontal

shafaq said:


> ...........



doh, how could i leave out _arasında_ Thank you. 
Do we always transliterate _etmek_ as _itmek _and _gece_ as _gice_ in Ottoman Turkish texts (and no harmony of the _d _to _t_), or is there a chronological divide between Klasik Osmanlı Türkçesi and Yeni Osmanlı Türkçesi texts (Ottoman Turkish after the Tanzimat) regarding this? The same i was wondering about _için_ vs _içün. _Sorry if it is too off topic question.


----------



## shafaq

I don't know if it is off topic or not; but at least it is out of my scope. It is just what I saw. 
If you really interested in, I have a friend which is an official expert in  "Ottoman Archives" of State.


----------



## analeeh

Torontal said:


> doh, how could i leave out _arasında_ Thank you.
> Do we always transliterate _etmek_ as _itmek _and _gece_ as _gice_ in Ottoman Turkish texts (and no harmony of the _d _to _t_), or is there a chronological divide between Klasik Osmanlı Türkçesi and Yeni Osmanlı Türkçesi texts (Ottoman Turkish after the Tanzimat) regarding this? The same i was wondering about _için_ vs _içün. _Sorry if it is too off topic question.



In academic texts in English the tendency is to transliterate Ottoman more or less as modern Turkish, so _gece_, _etmek_ etc (there's some variation with regard to spelling of stuff like final devoicing, which also applies when transliterating Ottoman in modern Turkish). My feeling is that the older the text is the more likely things are to be transliterated according to their older pronunciation (and thus their actual spelling). I've never seen _içün _in a modern English academic transliteration of Ottoman at least. Though you might be right about the classic/new divide, since most of the stuff I've read is about the late period.


----------

