FAQ

Here I answer questions which are often asked of me. This saves me time having to rewrite answers. This is Jonathan North Washington's wiki, btw.

Linguistics

"What do you do?"

See my home page for a description of what I do.

"What languages do you speak?"

Well, linguistics isn't about what languages I speak (see below), but I do know a few. I'm a native speaker of English. I also speak French, Spanish, Russian, and Kyrgyz fairly well (though I can usually only deal with one of those at a time, and Russian especially interferes with Spanish for me; and even switching between Russian and Kyrgyz can be tricky), and I can converse at a basic level in Kazakh and Yiddish. I also know a bunch of other languages with basic reading and writing ability, but can't speak them very well. See my resumé.

"What is linguistics?"

In general, linguistics is the scientific study of language. Linguists desire to understand language and its psychological reality—what may and may not be possible systems for languages, and why. For a more thorough explanation, see wikipedia's article on linguistics.

"What is phonology?"

Phonology is the study of languages' sound systems; i.e., it has the same goals as linguistics, but focuses on systems related to the manner of language production. See wikipedia's article on phonology.

"What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?"

I like phonetically grounded Optimality Theory, and at this point it's probably what I'm most familiar with. I'm willing to work with other frameworks, though, and take issue with the way some things are done in OT.

"What camp of syntax to you subscribe to?"

This is hard, since I'm not familiar enough with much beyond GB. Really, everything's looked about as good to me so far. Minimalism shows some promise, but I don't know enough about it (does anyone? Just kidding..). The one theory that stands out as making a lot of sense to me is Jackendoff's so called "simpler syntax". I can't say I'll join that camp just yet, though, as I have some reading to do first.

Also, HPSG seems much more predictive than other frameworks, so I like it for that. It seems far separated from the cognitive aspect, though, which I'm never fond of in a linguistic theory.

Kyrgyzstan

Кыргызстанга эмне үчүн келдиң?

Биринчи жолу 2006 жылындагы июль жана август айында Кыргызстанга келдим. Мен ошол убакта Казакстанда казак тилин өйрөнүп жатканмын, жана эки досум Кыргызстанда бираз өйрөнүшкөн. Алар "Кыргызстанга кел, дем ал" деп айтып, ошондо мен келип, эки жарым жумага өлкө бою саякатка барып көптү көргөнмүн. Кыргыздар менен казак тилинде сөйлөгөндө, кыргыз тили менен кызыгып калдым - башка чөлкөмдөрдө кыргыз тилин башкача сөйлөгөнүн мага бөтөнчө кызыккан.

Ошондо кыргыз диалектерин изилдегим келип, Фулбрайт грантына арыз бердим. Мен грантка кабыл алынганда, Сентябрда Кыргызстанга келип, Бишкекте квартира таптым. 2007 жылында Октябрь башынан кыргыз тилин өйрөнүп турам. Кыш ичинде изилдөөмдү Кыргызстанды катар баштамакчымын. Августта Америкага кайра келгенде, Докторантурада окуй баштайм.

Фулбрайт деген эмне?

"Фулбрайт" деген эл аралык грант. Башка өлкөдө турган адамдар бир-бирин түшүндүрүш үчүн Американын өкмөтү окуучулар жана окумуштууларга грант берет. Окуучулар бир проект аткарыш керек - мисалы, менин проектим - кыргыз диалекттерин изилдөө деген проект. Америкалык окумуштуулар грантты алса, башка өлкөдө окутат. Гранттын варианттары дагы бар - мисалы бир вариант менен окуучулар Америкага башка өлкөдөн келе алат, Америкада окуш үчүн. Ошол жөнүндө дагы окусаңыз болот.

Изилдөөмдү аткарышым керек деп жаздым, бирок Американын өкмөтүнө эч нерсе беришим кереги жок. Изилдөөм өзүмө - мисалы, келечекте кыргыз диалекттери тууралуу жазармын. Гранттын эң маңыздуу максаты бир проектти аткарыш эмес - ордуна ал өзүнүн өлкөсүнөн башка жерде жашаш, ошол жактагылар менен бир-бирин жакшы түшүнүш, жана окумуштуулар менен маалымат эркин алмашыш.

Изилдөөң кандай?

Мен өзүм лингвист жана туркологмун. Лингвист деген филологго окшойт. Лингвисттер тил менен кызыгышат, бирок филологторго окшошпогондо адабият менен кызыгышпайт. Лингвисттерге эң маңыздуу суроо деген "адам мээсинде тил кандай иштейт?". Балдар тил үйрөнүшүш үчүн, мээлери кандай болуш керек? Дүйнөдөгү тилдерде кайсы системалар табыла алат, кайсылар табыла албайт? Эмне үчүн?

Мен лингвистика ичинде фонология жана фонетика менен кызыгам. Фонология деген тилдин тыбыштарынын системасы жөнүндөгү илим. Фонетика деген жөн эле тыбыш жөнүндөгү илим. Мен кыргыз тилинин фонологиясы жана фонетикасы менен кызыгып жатам. Ал тууралуу көбүрөөк билгим келет. Ошондуктан, кыргыз тилинин диалекттерин изилдегенде, фонетика жана фонология боюнча диалекттердин айырмачылыктарына көңүл бөлүп жатам.

Why did you come to Kyrgyzstan?

(Following is an English translation of the above sections in Kyrgyz. The translation was done quickly, is pretty rough, and probably sounds almost as simple and inelegant as the Kyrgyz original.)

I came to Kyrgyzstan the first time in July and August 2006. At that time I was studying Kazakh in Kazakhstan, and two friends of mine were studying some in Kyrgyzstan. They told me to come and take a vacation in Kyrgyzstan, so I came, and for two weeks I travelled around the country and saw a lot of stuff. Speaking Kazakh with Kyrgyz speakers, I got interested in Kyrgyz—especially how Kyrgyz is spoken differently in different areas.

So I ended up wanting to study Kyrgyz dialects, and so I applied for a Fulbright grant. When I received the grant, I came to Kyrgyzstan in September, and found an apartment in Bishkek. From the beginning of October of 2007, I've been studying Kyrgyz. In winter, I'll start my research around Kyrgyzstan. In August, when I return to America, I begin my doctorate work.

What's Fulbright?

"Fulbright" is an international grant. The American government gives the grant to students and scholars so that people living in different countries may understand one-another. Students must conduct a project—for example, my project is to study Kyrgyz dialects. If an American scholar receives the grant, they teach in another country. There's other variants of the grant: for example, students from countries besides America can receive the grant to study in America. You can read more about this.

I mentioned that I must conduct a project, but I'm not required to give anything to the American government. My research is for myself—for example, in the future, I might write something on Kyrgyz dialects. The grant's most important goal isn't to complete a project, but instead to live in another country than one's own, for you and the people living there to come to understand one-another, and to interact freely with local scholars.

What's your research about?

I myself am a linguist and a Turkologist. A linguist is similar to a philologist. Linguists are interested in language, but unlike philologists, aren't interested in literature, and take a more scientific approach to the study of language. For linguists, the most important general questions are "how does language function within the human brain?". For children to learn language, what must their brains be like? What systems can be found in the world's languages, and what systems can't be found? Why?

The answers for these broad field-wide questions are approached on a very small scale with small-scale projects.

Within linguistics, I'm interested in phonology and phonetics. Phonology is the science of the cognitive systems associated with the transmission of language. Phonetics is the study of just the more physical aspects of the transmission of language. I'm most interested in the phonology and the phonetics of Turkic languages.

On my Fulbright research, I examined the phonology and phonetics of the Kyrgyz language. Researching Kyrgyz varieties ("dialects") allowed me to pay specific attention to differences between them in terms of phonetics and phonology, which helped me to understand each variety's system better.

You can see some of the progress on my research at Phonetic Survey of Kyrgyz Dialects.

Kazakhstan

"Why have you gone to Kazakhstan / Central Asia?"

This question is often asked by both my American and Kazakh friends.

Сен қазақ болсаң, Қазақстан неге қызық жер екенін білмесең, нағыз қазақ емессің ғой! Қазақ тілі неге қызық екенін білмесең, лингвистика түсінбейсің - ал мына мәселе емес ;) Жоғары оқы.

As a linguist, all languages interest me. In particular, I've become fascinated by Turkic languages (and more generally in Altaic languages). After this interest originally developed (I'd studied Uzbek and Tatar each for a summer), I was invited to spend the summer in Almaty, so I did, with the idea in mind to learn as much Kazakh as I could. It began to sink in that Kazakh is a really neat language from a linguistic point of view, with lots and lots of material which has yet to be studied in the framework of theoretical linguistics (see above). So I go back to Kazakhstan (and Kyrgyzstan) when I can, to better learn Kazakh (and Kyrgyz) and conduct research. I also like to spend time with the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in general (the local Russians and other peoples aren't bad either;), and have lots of friends in Central Asia now.

"Where's Kazakhstan?"

This question is often asked by my American friends. Lots of information can be found in wikipedia's article on Kazakhstan.

"Қазақша білесің бе не?"

Жаңа қазақ таныстарым бұл сұрақ әдетте сұрады.

Бірінші нәрсе - мен қазақ емеспін. :-P Жай америкалықпын.

Сондықтан, мен неге қазақ тілін білемін? Неге Қазақстанға бардым деген сұраққа жауап аздап жоғарырақ.

Қаяқтан үйрендім дейсіз бе? Негізінде, Алматыдағы Дарын Институтынан, Атырау Мемликеттік Университеттен, және Индиана Университетінде үйрендім. Әр бірінде бір жаз оқыдым, бірақ сабақтарда Индианада ғана отырдым.

Не үшін? Көрейік!

Me

Why is your middle name "North"?

My father's father's mother's name was Ruby North Moore. She got this name because her father's name was Frederick North Moore. He got this name because his mother, Irene Harriet North Moore's maiden name was North, from her father, Frederick North, who was born 12 August 1803. So it's a last name that no one in the family's had for 200 years, but has stuck around anyway as middle names.

Vegetarianism

I'm a vegetarian, or more accurately, a political pseudo-vegetarian. (Thanks for the term, Susan.) This means that I don't eat meat often—though I do eat it—and choose not to eat meat at times as well, since I consider the way that animals are mass-produced into meat to be cruel.

Facts:

• Factory farming sucks.
• I enjoy eating meat sometimes.
• I often chose not to eat meat.
  • I'll eat meat if it's what's for dinner and won't pressure anyone into changing the menu (since I'll probably like it).
  • Sometimes even when there's an option not to, I might opt to eat the meat anyway if I think it will be exceptionally good.
  • I eat meat much more often when in Central Asia: factory farming is almost unheard of, farm animals live relatively free lives (flocks roam free during the day); traditionally animals are treated pretty well, since they're the livelihood of pastoral nomads.

For the record, I've heard many arguments for and against vegetarianism, and agree at least to some extent with most of them [on both sides]. Some of my favourites against vegetarianism include "I'm at the top of the food chain and am proud of it," and "I like meat too much to be a vegetarian." The horrors of factory farming and my slight squeamishness about death are my main reasons for being vegetarian. I'm also apparently pretty good at cooking meat, but I don't do it very often.

Religion

The point of this section is to explain my "religious views" to those who are curious and to those who think they want to try to "convert" me.

Background

First of all, I find the term "religion" to be a strange word when I try to define it. In the west, it seems to refer to a second, often less natively learned form of culture. It also seems to refer to any beliefs related to the spiritual world. Hence, in the west, a person's religion usually corresponds to something as simple as what church they attend, or would attend if they felt so inclined. If I answer the question based on this—which seems to be the easiest way to answer the question—then I would consider myself Jewish.

Let's discuss Judaism. My mother's Jewish, so whether I like it or not, and despite beliefs and practices of mine that conflict with Judaism, many Jews would consider me Jewish. In this sense I am at least partially ethnically Jewish. And since the religious services I most often chose to attend, as well as my "religious" traditions of choice are mostly Jewish, I have some level of Jewish affiliation.

Okay, how about my beliefs? Well, the word "belief" seems to refer to at least two conflated meanings; compare: "Do you believe in Jesus?" vs. "Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?" The first question does not appear to be questioning whether I believe that Jesus existed or not (I believe he existed as much as I believe any historical figure existed), but rather whether I follow his teachings (many of them I do, no doubt, but not with any specific intent to) and accept that he was some sort of supernatural religious symbol whom I ought to worship (which I don't). The latter question simply asks whether I believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny (my response to which, of course, depends on how you define "Easter Bunny"). There is another meaning, such as "Do you believe in eating pork"—that is, what do you believe *should* be done, what's moral to do.

My beliefs, compared to other "religious" beliefs

So let's look at the more basic meaning of belief—what do I believe to exist? Well, pretty much everything I've seen I believe to exist or to have existed in at least some sense of the word exist. I believe in the existence of the planet I live on, and other bodies in space which there's been some sort of evidence to suggest to me that they exist. I don't know enough about astrophysics to have much of an opinion as to where it all comes from and how big it is and all that, but I trust that astrophysicists, using scientific methods, have a much better idea of all of this, and may be approaching some fairly accurate answers.

Do I believe that there is a supernatural creator of all of this? Probably, depending on the definition of "supernatural creator". Do I believe that this supernatural creator is a creature, maybe with sentience, will, etc? Probably not; most likely, it's all some really impressive physical process that we might as well hold in awe and reverence as The Creator. Do I believe that there is some sort of benevolent (or otherwise) supernatural creature monitoring all my deeds and judging me? Probably not. Does this mean I don't have "morals"? No (read on). But the main point of all this is that I don't specifically believe either way on many of these issues, and in fact, I believe that it is impossible, by definition, for humans to know one way or the other the answer to questions of faith.

My actual "religious" beliefs

Okay, how about the other "believe"s—what do I believe humans should do; what moral code do I ascribe to? (These are the questions that add up to what I might call the core of "religion", under some definitions). To provide a concise answer to these questions, I essentially believe that humans should appreciate, respect, and try to learn about the environment around them. To extend this some, "the environment" refers to the physical and social world around each of us.

Appreciation implies some sense of wonder at the world around you; this is something that no one can force on you, and if you don't have it, oh well. This can be equated with spirituality, so if you want to call the world around me that I appreciate "God", then go right ahead—just know that it doesn't have all those other connotations of a supernatural conscience that people want to associate with the word.

Respect implies giving back to the world, trying your best not to hurt people, the environment, etc.

Respect and appreciation can conflict—for example, should one eat animals? Well, it's a personal choice: is it more important that you appreciate the fruits of the earth, or is it more important that you respect the creatures that could provide you with this appreciable sustenance, and not eat them? It's a personal choice, and can rely on other factors, and many people don't seem to have a problem with the fact that this is a personal choice.

Lastly, learning about one's environment means that you should strive your best to understand the world around you. I do this through linguistics—it's a passion of mine to understand everything I can about language and how the human mind must be for language to exist as such, and so I do what I can to help contribute to the current scientific understanding of all this. People don't always have the opportunity or desire to learn about their environments, and as I mentioned above, people don't always feel appreciation for it either; this makes respect the most important moral guideline in this belief system—probably even one to fall back on in cases of doubt.

And bringing this back to the question of "my religion", I don't really know a name that captures these beliefs as the important part of a belief system, so I don't really have a good name for my beliefs. Obviously, the word "agnostic" summarises what I believe in terms of supernatural powers, but that's not the core of my belief system. Also, most of this isn't in direct conflict with Judaism, so the term "Jewish" can continue to apply to me as well, but still/again, "Judaism" doesn't sum up my belief system well.

In the end, the way I stick to my belief system, or "practice my religion" looks like a mix of various things. The typically "religious" elements are mostly just traditions I keep because I was brought up with them and appreciate them for what they are, and usually certain aspects of some of them speak to me in some way. For example:

• I keep Jewish traditions, like Passover, Hanukkah, and Yom Kippur, and always take to heart the idea behind the Sabbath.
• I keep kosher to some extent: I don't eat pork or shellfish, partly because I was raised not to (though my father eats pork and my mother eats shellfish), partly because they're meat, and partly because they creep me out as food.
• I observe WASP American traditions, usually in "secular" ways—especially Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Hallowe'en.
• I do my best to live in harmony with the environment around me: that is, I make an effort to respect the environment and everyone and everything in it (when worthy;), and try to contribute to everyone's future in the ways that seem most fitting given what I enjoy and am good at. I also do enjoy what I can of the environment (all the various forms natural beauty can take, including things like landscapes, weather, food, music, language, even cityscapes) and other people (people can be awesome).

The last of the previous points reflects a belief system that could be referred to as "pagan" in English. This bit of my belief system I refer to as Tengriistic, since it parallels certain aspects of Tengriism. I don't share the entire belief and practice system of Tengriism (mostly because I don't live as a pastoral nomad); the sentiment of the US Ásatrú Folk Assembly, where they define Ásatrú as "an expression of the native, pre-Christian spirituality of Europe", is similar to what I feel here: "an expression of the native, pre-Islamic spirituality of the Turkic peoples".

In short

To summarise, I don't believe that it's possible to know whether "G-d" "exists" or not (and hence take a neutral stance on it; i.e., I myself don't know), so feel that's an irrelevant part of a belief system. I do, however, believe that humans should appreciate, respect, and try to learn about the environment around them. This means that an attempt should be made to understand everything (people, the environment, etc.), respect it all for what it is, and appreciate it for what it can do for you.

"What do you think about Borat?" / "Борат жек көреміз, сенші?"

Everyone has different views about the "Borat" craze. Since I study Kazakhstan, and am one of few Americans to have some understanding of Kazakhstan from within Kazakh society, I feel that I should comment on this for my American friends. Қазақша сөйлейтін қазақ әлеуметі және дәстүрлері түсінетін америкалық болып, қазақ достарым үшін ойларымды беруім қажет екен.

What Borat teaches

• "How racism [can feed as much] on dumb conformity [as] rabid bigotry." It's obvious that the racist views expressed by Borat are not those of Sascha Cohen. This is satire--satire of not just people who are overtly racist, but of those who are are willing to blindly follow. Borat teaches us to be cautious and to think about what we do so that we do not blindly conform.
• What Kazakhstan is not. Borat's image is so over the top that viewers understand that his character is not actually indended to depict people from Kazakhstan. For many viewers, this will spark a curiosity to learn more about Kazakhstan.
• That people are accepting of foreigners, as outrageous as their views may be. It's humourous when one of Borat's "subjects" tries to explain why a view he expresses isn't considered appropriate in our society. This makes Western viewers really consider the "why" of their culture, which is the first step towards accepting others.
• That even the most prim among us are human beings. We're all human, even Borat's character, and while people don't always get along with him or understand or even accept his "views", they are usually willing to humour him. We're all human, despite tremendous differences not just in background, but in belief.
• Borat's crude mannerisms but willingness to deal with polite society shows people in polite socity that they are also capable of crude manerisms. This shows much of the world--who balance their lives between revelling in some crudeness and being polite--that neither is inherently bad or good. Each aspect of a person's character has its place and time, and part of the humour of Borat is mixing this up.

What Borat does not teach

• That Kazakhs are crude, or that Kazakh society is misogynous and anti-Semitic. If people don't get that Borat's not an accurate reflection of Kazakhs, the joke's on them. In more ways than one.
• Anti-semitism. Borat does not teach people to be anti-semitic, nor should people be offended by his anti-semitism. The point of his effected anti-semitism is to show how generally racist society can be, especially when trying to play along. It also shows how much some people expect anti-semitism—whether they're anti-semitic or not—from outside their own society. This form of anti-semitism is, once again, satire.

Main Argument

My main argument relies on the understanding that Borat is not humour in that it makes fun of Kazakhstan and Kazakhs, but is humour in that it makes fun of people who don't know anything about Kazakhstan. When people accept Borat as a Kazakh, and don't know that this isn't how Kazakhs act or what they believe, the joke is on them. The way they act after this makes them (and not Borat) look like an ignorant fool. Sascha Baron Cohen's Borat act is designed to get this response from people, and not designed to spread lies about Kazakhstan.

As the NY Times puts it (source needed!):

...it seems as if comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is mocking Kazakhstan. He is not. He's mocking you. After all, you're the idiot who doesn't know where Kazakhstan is or if it's the kind of place where, as Borat claims, there's a "Running of the Jews". And more important, you're the idiot who believes so much in cultural relativism that you'll nod politely when a guy tells you that in his country they keep developmentally disabled people in cages. Or, worse yet, you're the person who tells him it's not a bad idea...

Banning

Kazakhstan threatened to sue Sascha Cohen, and now Russia's banned the movie. This, in my opinion, is a very old-fashioned paranoid Soviet attitude towards everything. How can people in Russia know if they're offended by the movie or not unless they see it? Or at least know some people who have seen it. If only the three people who decided to ban it have seen it, people will just have to believe them that it was offensive, and they won't be able to make their own opinion. (And okay, I even feel it was slightly offensive--just not to Kazakhs as much as some other groups). And Kazakhstan is continuing its advertising campaign to show how progressive a country it's becoming. This is fair, though I can't imagine very many people watching the movie are going to believe that he's actually from Kazakhstan--it's so obviously one big joke, and a lot of it even seems staged. If people can't see that, I worry about how shallow they are. The governments of Russia and Kazakhstan are being quite shallow themselves. If any country should ban Borat, it's the US. I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow and heard that Alabama had banned it.

Links

Borat vs. Kazakhstan - A good read with a good outlook (though I don't necessarily agree with it)

Revised Statement

A bulletted list, to make my points more discrete and clearer:

1. I don't support the movie.
   1. It takes advantage of people harmed in filming.
   2. It takes advantage of American ignorance.
   3. It reinforces stereotypes.
   4. It creates stereotypes.
2. I don't support banning the movie.
   1. The movie is offensive to a lot of people. So are most governments.
   2. Banning things is rarely constructive.
   3. Voicing objections is a constructive way to disapprove of the film.
   4. Participation in forums (such as facebook) is a constructive way to approach, create, and discuss issues and criticism.
   5. ((If the movie were banned in the US, the gvt would immediately be criticised. But there would've been no controversy about the movie, and people would get the impression that the gvt is a bunch of jerks who were no doubt scared of something that they had no reason to be scared of. People would know nothing about the movie or why it was banned, and would imagine that it couldn't possibly be as bad as the government thought. And no one would learn anything from it.))
3. While the movie is quite certainly presenting society with a [fictional] negative image of Kazakhstan, I do not beleive this was necessarily the intent of Sascha Baron Cohen. This is irrelevant though.
4. Many parts of the movie were intended to make fun of American society and stereotypes to make Americans see themselves being idiots.
5. Many parts of the movie were intended to take advantage of American society and stereotypes to make Americans laugh.
6. There were parts of the movie that presented stereotypes about people from Kazakhstan *not for Borat's interviewees, but for the movie viewers*. These were no doubt added for the purpose of making the movie flow better (leading to better sales?), and counters the supposed intent of the movie: "to allow people to bring out their own prejudices" (Cohen).
7. Taking advantage of American society and stereotypes as in (5) can be harmful, in that it can further promote existing negative elements.
8. People who understand that these stereotypes are being taken advantage of and who realise that many different things are being inaccurately represented may enjoy some of the humour, but probably won't appreciate it as much as others.
9. People who don't understand that these stereotypes are being exploited and don't realise that many groups are being misportrayed are the ones who will go on believing in the stereotypes, potentially more strongly than before.
   1. The people mentioned here are more prevalent than I'd like to think, and they're the reason "society" gets "impressions" about things.
   2. It is not, in fact, that a view spreads out into society, but rather that people accept a view as truth, and purvey it themselves through hegemonic devices such as arguments of post-hockery. That fact that many people are not cautious about this is not indicative of problems in society, but itself does cause problems in society.
   3. Enough people (quite likely the majority in America) know that Borat is a fictional character, and that his Kazakhstan is even more fictional, that anyone who doesn't realise this will be ridiculed.
   4. ((Several of my friends have reported to me that someone they knew didn't know Kazakhstan was a real place, and/or that they thought Borat really was from Kazakhstan. These people have gotten laughed at for their ingorance, and have lost respect in the eyes of my friends who know them.))

Random

Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u›

The character ‹u› usually represents a vowel in the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh, ‹у› may sound like a vowel, but in fact represents five separate sounds: /ʊw/, /ʉw/, /əw/, /ɨw/, and /w/. Consider the following forms, where /w/ is added as a suffix, and the letter ‹у› is used to represent various sound combinations:

• Verb stem "қала-" (қала-ған) → "қалау" /qala+w/
• Verb stem "сөйле-" (сөйле-ді-м) → "сөйлеу" /sʷʉjlʲe+w/)
• Verb stem "оқы-" (оқы-ды-м) → "оқу" (оқыу /ʷʊkə+w/)
• Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "еру" (еріу /ʲɨrɨ+w/)

In all cases, the /w/ sound ends the sound represented by ‹у›.

Now consider what happens when the "-ны" suffix is added to words ending in ‹-у›:

• "тау"+"ны" → "тауды"
• "бу"+"ны" → "буды"
• (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")

In all cases, the original ‹n›-initial suffix starts with ‹d›. This happens only after consonants in Kazakh—after vowels it retains the /n/; this shows that ‹у› (or the last sound in the various sounds represented by ‹у›) is in fact a consonant and not a vowel.

Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable. Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.

Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff

The following addresses a problem in transcribing Kyrgyz, but the basic issue is valid for Kazakh (and a number of other languages) as well.

The following four phonemes in Kyrgyz together pose a problem for transcription. Presented below are the most common systems.

Cyrillic	IPA	Russian-style	Turkologist	English-style A	English-style B	Turkish-style
и	/i/	i	i	i	i	i
ы	/ɯ/	y	ɨ	y	y	ı
й	/j/	j	y	i	y	y
ж	/ʤ/	dzh/dž	ǰ	j	j	c/j

The major flaw of the two English-style systems is that they both merge one of the unrounded high vowels (/i/, /ɯ/) with the consonant /j/. The other systems don't merge any phonemes, but have their own problems. For example, the Russian-style system uses the trigraph ‹dzh›—or at best, the digraph ‹dž›—for a single Kyrgyz phoneme. This is due to certain traditions of transcribing Russian, along with the fact that this sound is approximated in Russian by the combination of two phonemes (/d/ and /ʐ/); this is completely unnecessary in Kyrgyz. The remaining two systems (Turkologist/Turkicist and Turkish-style) each pose the problem of containing characters not found in English.

What do I recommend? Any consistent way of keeping the phonemes distinct wins my vote, and everything else is just æsthetic. I personally prefer to use the Turkish-style system (with ‹j› instead of ‹c›, since Kyrgyz has no phonemic difference between [ʤ] and [ʒ])¹ for general-purpose broad/phonemic transcriptions and IPA for more narrow transcriptions or when writing for a linguistics-oriented audience.

Footnotes:

1. Kyrgyz does, however, have a phonemic contrast when recent loans are included. In Russian loans, both /ʒ/ and /ʦ/ are attested modernly for many speakers (traditionally, these were nativised as /ʤ/ and /s/, respectively). This leaves the problem of how to transcribe these, since using ‹j› for /ʒ/ would be normal in the Turkish-style system, leaving ‹c› for /ʤ/; this doesn't leave ‹c› for /ʦ/, though unlike for Russian, a two-phoneme analysis may be best. In this case, ‹ts› might be the best way to go.