Talk:Glagolitic alphabet
|
|
| Contents |
Origin
Established authorities say the origin of Glagolitic is uncertain -- need some fact-checking on the whole Cyril thang...
Well I could do some research on this - but next week. In the meantime you might find out about the authorities questioning this origin. -- HJH
Menchi's suggestion
Now with the table and illustration, the article has truly become a useful tool! A few things that can be improved:
- Image:GlagolitsaGlagol.gif seems cut off a bit on the right.
- What were the names of the following Cyrillic letters? What do they look like?
- The abolished Cyrillic letters derived from jat and izhitsa.
- The Cyrillic letters used only to transcribe Greek, derived from oht and thita. I assume the Cyrillic shapes in this case are identical to their Greek counterparts. But are they also called the same in Russian as the Greek?
- Can the additional words in the names of those four Glagolitic letters derived from jus be translated?
-Menchi 11:22 19 May 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! ^_^
- I'll recrop it.
- Some answers below; but what I really need to do is to add a historical section to Cyrillic alphabet. Then I can remove "modern" from the table and just reference the name.
- "Jat" (or "Yat" in the transliteration style used on Cyrillic alphabet) and "Izhitsa" ^_^.
- The Cyrillic alphabet still was still using the Glagolitic names when those letters died out from Cyrillic, at least in all of my sources.
- "Jotirovannij" must mean "Iotated" (that is «palatalised»), but I don't understand the other terms.
-- Toby Bartels 03:27 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- 2.1. Unicode also calls izhitsa in modern Russian izhitsa. Its Unicode is Ѵ (cap), ѵ (small). But a website written by linguistics professors of the Bavarian Universität Bamberg (http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/AKSL/Schrift/Transliteration.htm) shows that izhitsa in modern Russian is called sẏnod (synod), and its transliteration is ẏ (y with dot above). From the same website (http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/AKSL/Schrift/RussAlphabet.htm), it also shows that izhitsa/synod looks exactly like the Latin V.
- Jat in Unicode is Ѣ and ѣ. It is not described on the Bavarian page.
- 2.2. The Bavarian page also shows that thita is called 'foma, and its transliteration is 'f.
- Oht isn't in Unicode or the Bavarian page. --Menchi 11:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
If you know alternative names, or even other letters, then go ahead and add them! (But of course check if they were Glagolitic or Cyrillic.) If Wikipedia can be the source with no missing letters, then that'd be cool. ^_^ If you're having trouble finding "Oht", also look for "Ot", possibly with various diactritical marks to indicate length. -- Toby Bartels 03:48 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hebrew Derivation
I read in a book, probably Muller's World's Living Languages, that Sha and Shta are derived from the Hebrew ש (shin). And that Tsi and Cherv are from צ (tzadi). There is a resemblance, not just physical, but also phonetic. And these four Glagolitic letters are also the ones unattributed to Greek. Can this be confirmed? Have you read about this? -Menchi 11:39 19 May 2003 (UTC)
I've heard this as well, but never from an authoritative source. Do you still have that book? -- Toby Bartels 03:27 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I borrowed the book from the library four or five years ago. I won't visit a library that has it until July 1. My local library doesn't have it. I said it is a probable source, because I consulted a table I typed up for fun in my PC using several sources, the major one was the Muller book. I didn't type down the minor sources, and the Hebrew origin may have been in one of the minor sources.
- The full citation: Muller, Siegfried Hermann. The World's Living Languages: Basic Facts of Their Structure, Kinship, Location and Number of Speakers. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1964. P. 54 – 56.
- --Menchi 11:17 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- It's true that for the sounds Cyril couldn't match with Greek, generally the variety of fricatives and affricatives, he derived from the Hebrew Tzadi and Shin.
- -- 04:22 March 27 2005
Dalmatian Catholic Slavonic
I've altered text in one way: a reference to "Dalmatian Catholic slavonic something" is bizarre- it is Croatian cultural heritage, as is clearly visible from the added link.
Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)
Sha or Shta - Egyptian
It should be noted that the letter "Sha (or) Shta" is of an ancient Egyptian origin: The letter, which is known as "SHEI" in Coptic, among many other Coptic characters, is from a Demotic origin, and the Demotic from Hieroglyphic.
Most likely, "SHEI" found its way to Hebrew through Phoenician, which includes in its alphabet many modifications of the more complicated and impractical Demotic alphabet. The influence of Phoenician over both Greek and Hebrew (and many other languages) is fairly recognized.
The question now remains: Where did the Glagolitic get its virgin of "SHEI" from? I think we should look for something like a proof or evidence, that it was NOT from the Phoenician "?in", the Arabic "Seen" (or Sheen?), or the Coptic-itself "Shei", before we assert that it was from the Hebraic "Shin".
See for the Phoenician "?in": http://www.omniglot.com/writing/phoenician.htm and its Arabic and Hebraic equivalents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet
And for the Coptic "Shei": http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf p. 41"The Unicode Standard 4.0". p.5 in the pdf file. and p.5 in: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2744.pdf
And for the Hebraic "Shin": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet#.26.231513.3B
Thank you, Maysara
- Well, in Europe during the early Middle Ages there was not that much scholarship, or cross-cultural contact or study of non-vernacular languages other than Latin and Greek. So Hebrew is plausible because there were Jews in Europe, but Coptic or Phoenician seems completely out of the question. Arabic seems quite unlikely because Muslim conquest of eastern Europe didn't begin until the Turks many centuries later, and Spain was much too far away.
- Even if Hebrew got some of its letter from an earlier source, it seems entirely unlikely that that earlier source could have directly contributed anything to Glagolitic. -- Curps 04:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hello there, What do we know about the *contacts* of "Saint Cyril" (?) I mean, in such matters, we don't prove by refuting, we prove because we posses evidence. Nor that we *want* to prove anything initially. After all, there were also Phoenician traders, and Coptic literature, all around medieval Europe. And who knows what else! What we need is an evidence, not a likeliness or possibility. I think the attribution of the "Sha" & "Shta" needs to be neutralised in this section, unless some evidence is present for any of the attribution and derivation theories, for the sake of the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Most appreciatively, Maysara
- Your argument seems to be limited only to "Sha" and "Shta"... but you don't mention "Tsi". Do you have a plausible origin for it from Phoenician, Coptic or Arabic? If you need Hebrew to explain "Tsi", why look for a different origin for "Sha" and "Shta"? Occam's Razor favors a simpler explanation.
- It seems unlikely that there was much Coptic or Phoenician influence in medieval Europe, since those areas were under Muslim rule and contacts were very limited. Hebrew is much more plausible, not just because of the presence of Jews but because of study of Hebrew for Biblical studies. Also, it is known that Cyril and Methodius visited the Khazars in 859-860 on the orders of the emperor and the patriarch, and the Khazars had by then converted to Judaism. So there is a very plausible origin from Hebrew letters. Do you have any reference for a possible source from Phoenician, Coptic or Arabic, or is this just your own speculation or your own original research? -- Curps 06:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spelling and origin
I'm adding a redirect from 'glagolithic' to this page, since some sources spell the word 'glagolithic'...
Secondarily, I disagree with your writing of Cyril inventing glagolitic. My sources (very basic, in fact, but authoritative: the Columbia encyclopedia, 6th edition, and the most widely used Italian dictionary, the Garzanti) tell me it was Cyril (and followers) who borrowed from glagolitic in their 'invention' of cyrillic.
What you wrote applies to cyrillic, in my opinion, not to glagolitic.
If you agree, I would edit that part of the article, adding a healthy little more uncertainty.
Regards,
Marco
Aside 07:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can assure you that the current version exactly reflects the prevailing official opinion of medieval experts and Slavists.
Mnemotechnic phrase
Wasn't Az Buki Vedi Glagol Dobro Jest Zhivete Dzelo ... a meaningful phrase in Slavic? Compare with Japanese iroha, acrostics and alphabetic poems. --Error 02:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Azbuki
Is it really the Glagolithic that is called "azbuki" by Slavists? I always thought that az and buki is the basis for "azbuka", i.e. it denotes the Cyrillic... Juro 18:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Both. Azbuka is essentially a synonym for alphabet. Both of these alphabets have the same first two letters called Az and Buki, and both were historically called Kyrylytsia. —Michael Z. 2005-03-28 08:07 Z
Unclear English
In the "Characteristics" section there is an unclear sentence: "The square variant lends itself to abundant use of ligatures comparing to the Latin or the Cyrillic script."
"comparing" seems to be the wrong word for the job. If what is meant is "Glagolitic lends itself more to ligature use than Latin or Cyrillic", then "comparing" should at least be changed to "compared". As it stands it can be ambiguously read as "Glagolitic's abundant use of ligatures is comparable to that of Latin or Cyrillic".
I hope this is taken constructively to improve this very interesting article. — Hippietrail 01:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)