Talk:Early Cyrillic alphabet/Alphabet table

Table and discussion moved from Talk:Early_Cyrillic_alphabet

Discussion
Right, I've already put the IPA bits in in an earlier edit. With this edit, I've made some proposed changes to Michael's original work; mainly what I think are prolly corrections. Important points:
 * I've disambiguated the two styles of Yus-names (one seems to be Slavonic, like the other letter names in the table, and the other seems to be Russian) and moved them into the notes (as the column is too wide otherwise). I don't know how to spell Yotirovaniy in Russian, though, so that's a guess and I'm not convinced that it is genuinely correct Russian, so some help with those notes would be good. Equally, I'm guessing the Slavonic name, possibly having been inspired by page 5 of (PDF), which could be worth looking at for some of the other names.
 * I've taken a guess and adjusted the Russian names. &mdash;Michael Z. 01:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added in a load of stuff about qoppa. It might be of interest that (PDF) suggests (somewhere) that it was also called Stigma.
 * I've corrected the name of ljudije, which looked like a typo.
 * I've changed the name of pokoi, which I think was also wrong.
 * I've moved the notes out of the table and inverted the sequence of the zemlya note (I think you had it backwards, Michael).
 * Corrected the image and adjusted the note. &mdash;Michael Z. 01:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * I've separated all of the alternative transliterations and pronunciations, for clarity.
 * I've added IPA joiners for the three characters (tsi, ksi and psi) that I think should have them.
 * I've amended the transliterations of &scaron;ta so that they either use a há& or don't, rather than mixing the two.
 * I've amended the transliteration of jer&#363; to use a macron rather than a Y, which I found confusing. I'm not sure that this should be [y] in IPA, but I don't know, so I've left that unchanged.
 * I've removed the use of the IPA vowel-elongation symbol (&#720;) from transliterations, as it'd be better not to require odd characters in transliteration that are similar to keyboard characters, imho.
 * I've removed the suggestion of V to transliteration izhitsa, as I don't think it's a helpful transliteration (it looks like the Cyrillic character rather than sounding like the pronunciation).
 * I've renamed the &#263;a name for djerv (which I don't think should be there at all) and changed its transliteration accordingly, as I don't think it's ever been pronounced similar to glagoli. I think, though, that this character was only ever djerv and never &#263;a in earlier Slavic languages, so I think we could safely remove this name.
 * I'll trust your judgement and remove it. &mdash;Michael Z. 01:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * I think they're just characters that look similar, rather than intrinsically related, innit. &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think jati was ever iotised, so I think it should only be transliterated e, not je (hence the question marks against kheru. I've note made this change.
 * What I've read under Yat and elsewhere makes me think that "je" and in some cases "ji" are used, so I'll leave it as is. &mdash;Michael Z. 01:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll trust your judgment this time ;o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think kheru should be transliterated kh, not x (for similar reasons to my objection to V for izhitsa), but have not made this change either.
 * I've seen x used in linguistics articles.
 * Hmm, perhaps. I have too, but I just don'think it should be. I spose that'd be a POV statement, though. Leave it in, then. &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

In unrelated news, page 12 of (PDF) and the use as a final character in letter names at  makes me think that the extra hard sign is just a glyph variant.
 * Sounds right to me, based on the images of manuscripts I've seen. &mdash;Michael Z. 01:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Over to y'all; after all that, which involved scanning through several hundred Google hits for a couple of points, I need a screen break, so I'm off to the supermarket! :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 16:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. I decided to quit after just transcribing the graphic into a table, knowing there was more work to do (and I just found the Berdnikov paper last night).  Not only did I have no idea how much, but I get home from a meeting and there's so much done!  I'll digest this, and Berdnikov, for a while, and see what else is needed.


 * I think each letter should link to its article; perhaps from a column with the modern name, or Unicode name? I'm convinced I read somewhere that the more gestural zemlia was a later, half-uncial development.  But maybe that also gets complicated by the dzelo/zemlia interchangability.


 * &mdash;Michael Z. 22:30, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)


 * most of the diacritics appear to work right in my browser (the Yus transliterations had separated tildes, and the IPA nasalizations were box characters before). Now I see only the following problems (but don't regard me as an authority; my browser & fonts don't get everything right):


 * Transliteration column: both little Yuses have little tilde accents following the E's, as in "e~" and "je~" (although big Yuses look good).
 * The combining double inverted breves all seem to be showing up too far to the right, by one character. In the IPA name column the umbrellas cover the bold characters in [rItsi], [tsi], [psi], [ksi], [iZitsa], and in the IPA column [ts], [ks], and [ps].


 * Same problems in the latest Safari and Firefox on Mac OS X. I suspect it's a font bug.  When I copy and paste the text into TextEdit, it continues to display the same way.  But I can enter it correctly, using the same font.  So I'm guessing it's either the way it's entered, or my system software.  I'll see if i can test it somewhere else tomorrow.


 * &mdash;Michael Z. 00:02, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was bored. I'm off sick from work at the moment; it kept my brain doing something&hellip; ;o)


 * Yeah, I'm inclined to agree about linking; do you mean to the modern letter's article or were you envisaging creating articles for these letterforms as well? I'd be interested in any references you might have, if you have anything easily catalogued, btw. My thoughts on zemlja, though, are simply based on that the Zed-like form more closely resembles the Greek Zeta and the the more Three-like form more closely resembles the modern Ze; it would seem logical the progression would be:


 * How very odd about the font bits. The nasalisation tildes seem to be intermittent on Windows, sometimes, but I guess that's just Windows. I get the opposite thing with the joining breves, though. I find they overlap the character to the left just a little. We could always just ditch the joiners&hellip;
 * Anyways&hellip; :o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 02:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some sources call Izhe and I, "Izhe" and "Izhei".  Any truth to the rumour?

Image changes
Well, I've done an extensive search, and I can't find the zemlja reference that I'm clearly picturing in my addled brain.

Anyway, after my recent reading, I'm thinking of making a couple of changes to the letter images, to make them clearly represent early Cyrillic rather than modern Church Slavonic. [updated. New graphics are in; click "refresh" if you don't see them.]


 * Reverse the order of glyphs for Zemlia. &#10003;
 * Leave the two glyphs for Izhe as they are, for now. &#10003;
 * Add an earlier glyph for Ci, with a straight vertical descender. &#10003;
 * Add an earlier glyph for Cerv, a symmetrical goblet-shaped form. &#10003;
 * Add a note for Djerv, indicating it is only used in modern texts to transliterate the Glagolitic letter.

Am I on the right track? What else? Should I produces images of all the diacritics and punctuation listed at the bottom of the article?

&mdash;Michael Z.


 * Seems like a good plan to me (though bear in mind my zemlja point is based on assumption, not knowledge). I don't think the &Iuml;-like i is the same (again, I don't know), not least because there are two separate glyphs like that in Ukrainian, iirc (though does the diacritised variant indicate it's iotised?). Similarly, I think, one couldn't put a kratkaja onto an i, only onto an izhei (to make the glyph we now think of as I kratkoye).
 * I agree with the tsi change; I wasn't sure that the modern-tse-shaped character was right. I don't know anything about goblet-shaped &#268;erv, though, so I'll take your word for it.
 * I don't think you should move the onu round-form from onu to otu, though. The current (English language) names for the characters suggest to me that it's an onu glyph variant, not an otu glyph variant.
 * Images of diacritics (both the empty form and examples) and punctuation could be good, but I'm not gonna force you to do even more work&hellip; ;o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 16:28, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Found my reference (forgot to look into paper), and you're right about zemlia.


 * V. Lev, "The history of the Ukrainian script (paleography)", in Ukraine: a concise encyclop&aelig;dia, volume 1. University of Toronto Press, 1963, 1970, 1982.  ISBN 0-8020-3105-6


 * Anyway, both specimens in the book look basically zed-like, with a descender. In the earlier form the descender goes straight down and curls to the right at its end; in the later one it just comes to a point diagonally down and left&mdash;slightly more 3-like, but the difference is subtle.  Judging by the images of manuscripts in the book, ranging from the 1000s to 1700s, we could just use the single zed-like form for a sample.   The descender is usually quite dramatic in the text, and zemlia is only seen sitting on the baseline in titles of later texts, where the letters are carefully drawn.


 * The manuscripts images also support adding alternate forms for Tse and Che. The diaeresis on I appears in later manuscripts; in some it seems to be used on every I.  In one 1500s manuscript there's diaeresis over an O, and a couple have something like it over Izhe, but they might be breathing marks or some other little letter.  According to another essay in the book (V. Simovyc, J.B. Rudnyckyj, "The history of Ukrainian orthography") the modern Ukrainian Yi was introduced in the 1870s, so I think the diaeresis is either a ligature, iotification, or just an alternate glyph.  The array of marks over the letters is profound and confusing.


 * Berdnikov says that omega and round-o were both used mostly as a decorative variant of o, so it makes sense to keep them together (although, he later says that wide-o and narrow-o can be exchanged freely in writing, as opposed to omega). He calls our Izhe "Izhei", and our I "Izhe".  And that Djerv is only used in modern scientific texts to transliterate the Glagolitic Djerv, but the sound had disappeared by the time Cyrillic started to be used.


 * Well, that's enough bumbling about in the dark for now.
 * &mdash;Michael Z. 03:13, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


 * I'm so not buying an encyclopædia for one article ;o)
 * Interesting about zemlya, though. And all the bloody diacritics &mdash; I'm definitely with you on the confusing; how many can one language need?! What you cite (from Bedinkov) about O makes sense, though I'm not sure seeing the W-form precede the O-form sits comfortably in the image; it implies (to me) that one would see the W-form more frequently (or possibly earlier), whereas the O shape to O (Cyrillic) suggests that only the latter even might be true. I dunno, though, I'm moving into the realm of form rather than function now.
 * Intriguing about Djerv being effectively deprecated by the time Glagolitic lost out to Cyrillic, though, given that a character clearly based on that one is used in Languages of the former Yugoslavia to provide the [&#676;] (d–ezh) form, though.
 * Maybe Dzhe (&#1039;) is a later adoption directly from Glagolitic, where Glagolitic remained in use for much longer in the Balkans.
 * Yeah, could be, I guess. I wouldn't really know. I think the comment above should be altered though, so have tweaked it some. &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the time delay, btw. I'm back at work (and mainly recovered from being ill) now, so have less time to devote to my wikiholism, as well as having a lot of No2ID work to do, now that the British ID Cards Bill has come out. :oS &mdash; OwenBlacker 19:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem. Work demands are up and down over here, too. &mdash;Michael Z.
 * Quiet day in the office today ;o) &mdash; OwenBlacker 14:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding I Kratkoje: according to Berdnikov, I and Izhe were mostly interchangeable, but in order to save space it became conventional to write double-I as "&#1030;&#1048;", and later to use Izhe after any vowel. If the breve indicating a diphthongal I came along later, then would logically be applied only to the Izhe form.  As usual, this is only (educated?) guesswork.  &mdash;Michael Z. 07:34, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


 * That would make sense, I guess. I'd never really thought about that&hellip; &mdash; OwenBlacker 19:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)