Talk:Yat with diaeresis

Distinctiveness from yat with acute
- I note that you proposed this for redirection along with Yat with acute because "from the image it is clear that the diaeresis was used as a substitute where the grave accent wouldn’t fit over the tall letter when setting metal type, in that one dictionary". I disagree that that is the case: the diaeresis was in fact used analogously with the letter yo, to represent instances where a stressed yat was pronounced as /jo/, as in the nominative/accusative plural of гнѣздо́ (гнѣ̈зда). Following the 1918 reform, this is now гнёзда. Exactly the same thing happened with the (rare) ya with diaeresis, which only existed in about 5 words. For more examples, see wikt:Category:Russian terms spelled with Ѣ̈ and wikt:Category:Russian terms spelled with Я̈, though these are mostly inflected forms.

You can see modern uses of both of these on page 49 of this book from 2012, for instance. Theknightwho (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you!
 * My Russian is not good enough to easily work out everything in that book. I suppose, like Russian ё, these were sort-of distinct letters that were commonly written without the diaeresis?  —Michael Z. 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Yes, that's exactly it. I have a feeling there's also ѧ̈, which we don't list in the sidebar, but I suspect it was (is?) only used to show an etymological relationship with pre-1708 spellings. Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the content considerations here (I think it's clear I have no knowledge about this topic). What I would suggest to the participants of this discussion is to think about how we should ideally cover this topic. If this letter doesn't meet WP:GNG, it is probably better covered as a related/variant letter on the Yat page. Suriname0 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This ö-ification phenomenon in Russian should probably be mentioned in the articles yat and yo (Cyrillic) (and ya (Cyrillic)) in any case. —Michael Z. 00:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on whether the glyph merits an article of its own, but the whole page from which the illustration is taken confirms that the type used for setting it included both yat-with-acute (as in Звукомѣръ) and yat-with-diaeresis as distinct glyphs. By the way, this is the 1912 edition of the dictionary, and not 1903 as the illustration claims. The 1903 edition actually used yat-with-acute for both purposes. --Crash48 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)