Talk:Yer/Archive 1

What does back yer (ер обратный) mean ?
What is the meaning of back in this expression? Is it the articulation point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to only give Russian name for hard sign while the letter is also used in other languages that use Cyrillic alphabet? Wouldn't that violate the NPOV policy? --Ezhiki 20:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add other names relevant to all other languages. I know only 'yer', "hard sign", and "tvyordy znak" names. Bulgarian language article doesn't have alphabet yet, otherwise I'd had it added as well. Mikkalai 21:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration
Are there any standards for transliteration of "yer" into English? E.g., in Russian, how to distinguish And does one really needs to distinguis them?Mikkalai 16:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There are too many standards for this, so none is really standard...


 * The first case is pronounced quite differently from the second and third, so it must be kept separate. However, there is no need to distinguish between the second and third cases, because they rarely differ in pronunciation; both could use apostrophe (like ob'yableniye, raz'yezd, ruzh'yo, p'yanitsa &mdash; but vorobyi or perhaps vorob'yi, not vorob'i).  &mdash; Monedula 22:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I intended to suggest s section "Transliteration", but forgot and asked a question instead. This issue must be covered in the article IMO. Mikkalai 00:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I personally think that transliterated variant should be closer to how the word is pronounced, not to how it is written. My suggestion can be found in the transliteration table that I proposed.  It can be found here in the "Transliteration of Russian place names" section (there is a huge table in that section).  Since there were no comments (partly because this may not be the best place for such a proposal, but I don't know where it would fit), I was using it as is for all of my edits in the past couple of months.  I am strongly against using apostrophes (if you want my reasons why, let me know).  Any feedback would be appreciated.--Ezhiki 01:32, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The choice of a particular trancription or transliteration system does not matter much really, as long as people can recognize what the article is about. Adding the original Cyrillic spelling helps very much (and I recommend to always add accent marks to it). &mdash; Monedula 09:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I tend to (partially) disagree with the notion that it does not matter which transliteration system is used. Inconsistently transliterated words could create false expectation on the user side.  We need at least decide what system to use throughout the 'pedia, and then try and stick to it when possible.  The system should also be as intuitive as possible (i.e., among the first random guesses that the users unfamiliar with the policy would make).
 * In any case, this is going far beyond the original question Mikkalai asked (which is how the hard sign should be transliterated). What we can do for this particular article is give as many transliteration variants as we can come up with (as it was rightly noted that there is no system that is indeed accepted as a standard), but also note one variant that is used in the wikipedia (and this is something we should decide on, and I want to reiterate that this particular talk page is not a very suitable place for such a discussion).  Also, I we going to introduce a "Transliteration" section to every article on the letters of Russian alphabet?  What do you think?--Ezhiki 14:18, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it will be very difficult to enforce the use of a particular system of transliteration. As to the "transliteration" sections, it would be reasonable to list several systems, selecting one as the preferable one.  E.g. for the letter "&#1103;" we can say that it is best to transliterate it as "ya", but that it also gets transliterated as "ja" and "ia". &mdash; Monedula 14:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Enforcment would indeed not be simple, but I think the acceptance of the system very much depends on the usage patterns. There are not that many Russia-related articles in the wikipedia (comparing to the total number of articles), and changing them to comform with one translit system would lead to the situation when people who are not sure how a word should be transliterated and who are looking for analogies in other articles would use the system as well (because there will be more examples for them to follow).  After all, how many major contributors to Russian articles are there at this point of time?  I am sure that no more than a dozen or so.  Plus, the system I proposed earlier pretty much covers most of the current transliteration practices, so the number of changes is not going to be large.--Ezhiki 15:56, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's better not to change the existing articles. Apply your system to the new articles you create.  For everything else, create redirects. &mdash; Monedula 18:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I do try not to edit articles that require extensive changes that can lead to mass confusion. I also do not edit the variants that are widely recognized and accepted (e.g., Gorbachev will not be replaced with Gorbachyov, even though the latter is more accurate (but I would use Gorbachyov if it were a name of some obscure place)).  I do, however, make changes when an existing article is not heavily cross-referenced, or changes are minor, or spelling is just plain incorrect.  And, of course, I am using the system when adding new content.  Also, can you suggest where this particular discussion on transliteration can be put out for voting?  Thanks.--Ezhiki 19:04, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to suggest a proper discussion place for this, because there are not many wikipedians who are interested. Perhaps we should create something like "Russian Village Pump", where we could discuss everything concerning Russia and Cyrillic writing? &mdash; Monedula
 * That'd be great, I'm all for it. I do not, however, know how to make visitors who are interested in Russia aware of that place.  Any suggestions?--Ezhiki 20:31, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * We can place links to it at the top of discussion pages attached to main Russia-related articles. &mdash; Monedula 20:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (although there is sure a lot of linking involved!). Would you like to set up Russian Village Pump yourself, or should I do it?--Ezhiki 13:41, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

While the idea of Russian Village Pump would be good, but I have two objections.
 * 1) Where did you ever see a pump in a genuine Russian "derevnya" (village)? I put a different name for vote: By samovar.
 * 2) What is more, transliteration deserves a separate article. While every letter-specific article may go into details, a common article, say, Transliteration from Russian is a very thing to have. Especially there are some general things to say, like transliteration vs. transcription, etc. Mikkalai 17:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't really care what the place is going to be called (although "By samovar" sounds a bit too parochial, if not plain corny :)), but some villages do actually have pumps (at least in the RFE). Not that it's used as a gathering place, of course.  As for the transliteration article, you have my vote for it.  Who's going to start it?--Ezhiki 17:08, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * How about starting WikiProject Russia with history, language, geography, etc. subprojects, with plenty of talk pages? Mikkalai 23:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Dunno about Project Russia (seems like awful lot of work), but I would be among the first in line for a project on Russian geography etc...--Ezhiki 01:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have just started a Russian Subdivisions Project, which, I think, will be a great start (more manageable, too). Please feel free to join.  The project does not cover transliteration or naming conventions for Russian settlements types - we will need to set up a place for that separately.  If you have any comments, leave them on the project talk page or on my talk page.--Ezhiki 19:11, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

See also Russian History Harmonization and Wikipedia talk:Russian History Harmonization for other unification efforts. Mikkalai 19:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: this letter appears in as little as one out of every 100+ words in modern Russian. 66.245.30.110 19:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO the question is meaningless. Potentially, every word starting with e, yo, you, ya, may give rise to many words with yer by adding prepositions "pod", "nad", "bez", etc. On the other hand, you may create still more words usind other prepositions and/or adding them to other kinds of words. Unlike, say, English, you cannot count the number of different words in Russian, because of all these prepositions ad suffixes, even if you forget about engings. Some "significant" variants are listed in dictionaries, some not. You may ask for exact answer only for a particular edition of a particular dictionary. If it is in an electronic form, you may find the question easily. If it is not, just name it, and I will count in it for you, for a moderate fee :-) I believe I've seen some claims sayins something like this letter is in about 1.25% of Russian words, but clearly this is just an order-of-magnitude estimate, and some other may as well count 0.97%. So, if this is a quesition from some kind of student quiz, tell them the game is not fair. Mikkalai 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * grepping a dictionary gives some 600 (out of 160000). &mdash; Monedula 23:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable! I guess we may list all of them here :-) People create sillier lists. Seriously, are there many of them that do not separate a preposition from the root? Mikkalai 01:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There is &#1089;&#1080;&#1085;&#1098;&#1080;&#1094;&#1102;&#1072;&#1085;&#1100; (a kind of Chinese martial art, Xingyiquan). &mdash; Monedula 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Use in Modern Russian
The letter &#1098; does not indicate that the following vowel is to be pronounced as if at the beginning of a word, because &#1098;&#1080; is pronounced [ji], whereas word-initial &#1080; is pronounced [i], without a [j]. The most simple way to put it is: &#1098; = [j]. That's it. Buncic 16:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As in East Slavic language, Buncic, you are letting your theories interfere with The common usage that is very clearly stated. From the 1956 orthographic codification:


 * § 70. &#1041;&#1091;&#1082;&#1074;&#1072; &#1098; &#1087;&#1080;&#1096;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1090;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1082;&#1086; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076; &#1077;, &#1102;, &#1103; &#1074; &#1089;&#1083;&#1077;&#1076;&#1091;&#1102;&#1097;&#1080;&#1093; &#1089;&#1083;&#1091;&#1095;&#1072;&#1103;&#1093;:


 * &#1055;&#1088;&#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1095;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1074;&#1082;&#1080;, &#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1085;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1086;&#1075;&#1083;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1091;&#1102;, &#1080; &#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1103;, &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;: &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1098;&#1077;&#1079;&#1076;, &#1086;&#1073;&#1098;&#1105;&#1084;, &#1089;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1093;&#1098;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081;, &#1074;&#1086;&#1083;&#1077;&#1080;&#1079;&#1098;&#1103;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077;, &#1084;&#1077;&#1078;&#1098;&#1103;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081;.


 * &#1042; &#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1077; &#1095;&#1080;&#1089;&#1083;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1076;&#1074;&#1091;&#1093;-, &#1090;&#1088;&#1105;&#1093;-, &#1095;&#1077;&#1090;&#1099;&#1088;&#1105;&#1093;-, &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;: &#1090;&#1088;&#1105;&#1093;&#1098;&#1103;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081;.


 * &#1042; &#1080;&#1085;&#1086;&#1103;&#1079;&#1099;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1093; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1077; &#1080;&#1085;&#1086;&#1103;&#1079;&#1099;&#1095;&#1085;&#1099;&#1093; &#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1074;&#1086;&#1082; &#1072;&#1073;-, &#1072;&#1076;-, &#1076;&#1080;&#1079;-, &#1080;&#1085;-, &#1080;&#1085;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;-, &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;-, &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1088;-, &#1086;&#1073;-, &#1089;&#1091;&#1073;-, &#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;- &#1080; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1077; &#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1094;&#1099; &#1087;&#1072;&#1085;-, &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077;&#1088;: &#1072;&#1076;&#1098;&#1102;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1090;, &#1076;&#1080;&#1079;&#1098;&#1102;&#1085;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103;, &#1080;&#1085;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103;, &#1080;&#1085;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1094;&#1080;&#1086;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081;, &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1098;&#1102;&#1085;&#1082;&#1090;&#1091;&#1088;&#1072;, &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1088;&#1098;&#1103;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;, &#1086;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;, &#1089;&#1091;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;, &#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1089;&#1098;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;, &#1087;&#1072;&#1085;&#1098;&#1077;&#1074;&#1088;&#1086;&#1087;&#1077;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;.


 * As you can see, the combination *-&#1098;&#1080;- is illegal (note the word &#1090;&#1086;&#1083;&#1100;&#1082;&#1086; above) under the codified spelling rules.


 * It is true that it was propesed to allow it by Lopatin's reform about four years ago, in words like *&#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1088;&#1098;&#1080;&#1085;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;, currently written &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1085;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088; (search at {http://www.gramota.ru|"the government-sponsored gramota site"} for all the discussion), but there it would be separating morphemes rather than indicating an iotation. The [j] is indicated entirely in the vowel following the &#1098;; the hard sign separates the following vowel from the preceding consonant, and thus allows the vowel to be given its iotated, syllabic, reading, which it has at the beginning of the word.  With regards to iotation succeeding a consonant: generally, it "softens" (palatalizes) the consonant, and always so if the separator is a soft sign.  The degree of softening allowed by the hard sign, however, depends on the dialect, the word, and the individual speaker.


 * Under the existing rules, &#1089;&#1080;&#1085;&#1098;&#1080;&#1094;&#1091;&#1072;&#1085;&#1100; should really be spelled without the hard sign.


 * I am removing your &#1098;=[j] claim. It is, I think, misleading and imprecise. A. Shetsen 17:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like a case of describing the phonetic function vs. its orthographic derivation. No need to get personal.  &mdash;Michael Z. 18:06, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * Under wikipedia policy, common usage prevails. That the "letter" &#1098; is entirely orthographic in modern Russian is the big point: it has no vocalic value of its own, it is a sign (&#1079;&#1085;&#1072;&#1082;). The rest is political rehash. A. Shetsen 18:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) And where I've gone too far, I strike it out now. :)  The thing is, though, that all of these matters have really been dealt with by the philologists exhaustively.  A. Shetsen 04:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timing
The paragraph on Old Russian currently begins "From the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries...", with "twelfth" linking to 11th century. Clearly either the text or the link is wrong. -- EJ 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

America translates a name?
I don't understand why it ist takes place in an article about a cyrillic sign. I deleted it because in my opinion it has nothing to do with the subject. If anybody doesn't share my opinion, he or she may recall the paragraph and explain why he/she did so.80.146.88.230 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian Pronunciation
...between the Russian 'o' and 'э' ?? Shouldn't it be between 'о' and 'у'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.205.168 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe pre-reform
The article says:
 * In pre-revolutionary Russia, the hard sign was marked by an apostrophe (’) as first determined by Peter the Great and used throughout the Romanov Dynasty.

Is it true? I'm not quite sure.

According to Lev Uspensky's book Слово о словах (p. 160) the apostrophe was used for a few years after the reform because the hard sign glyphs were completely confiscated from printing houses and later gradually returned to its place as a separator in words such as подъезд. This book is popular science and it is not supposed to be a precise historical account, but i'll be surprised that it just lies about this matter. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is very interesting, and worth mentioning here, at least if it's just mentioned as “according to Uspensky...”


 * I do wonder about the history of the apostrophe—it's used in Ukrainian and Belarusian, and is similar to the old yerik or payerok in pre-Petrine manuscripts. —Michael Z. 2008-09-07 03:25 z 


 * Hmm, i was not familiar with the "payerok".
 * Uspensky's book is a lovely introduction to linguistics for schoolchildren, but it has its problems. Like many books of its era (the 50's), it is very supportive of the Soviet government and the October revolution. Abolition of the final yer is one of the revolution's most important symbols, so it's possible that this book gives an all-too-heroic account of the heroism of the Red Army soldiers that confiscated the yer glyphs from the printing houses in the name of the revolution. So i am reluctant to put this story into the article, as this source is not quite academic. It can be put into the article as an example of the propaganda of the reform, though!
 * Nevertheless i do believe that is good enough as a proof that the yer was used before the reform as the separator, and not an apostrophe. The Russian Wikipedia says the same, but unfortunately it doesn't cite an external source.
 * Anyway, i am removing the current passage about the apostrophe, which appears to be wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, eventually i did add it, but supported it by another source which i Googled up - a transcript of a radio interview with Natalia Yudina, the dean of the faculty of Russian language of the Vladimir State University. It appears academic enough to me, but feel free to challenge it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks great. I took the liberty of copy-editing a bit.


 * I don't know much about use of the ерикъ and паеркъ, and I don't know if they are specifically related to the use of the apostrophe (although the payerok certainly looks like it could be). There is a bit of information about their use and scans of manuscripts in a recent Unicode application, which led to them being added them to version 5.1 of the text-encoding standard (—search for “payerok” and see figs. 19 and 54). —Michael Z. 2008-09-07 16:34 z 

Red alert!
This article equates "yer" with "hard sign", even though even its lead acknowledges that both the hard sign and the soft sign are yers. This is apparently the result of a misguided merger between "hard sign" and "yer". As for the article soft sign, it doesn't even mention the word "yer" and the Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavic pronunciations of the sound. Yer should be, at the very worst, a disambiguation page between "hard sign" / "big yer" and "soft sign" / "small yer". At the very best, it should include a description of the commonalities in the history of these two Common Slavic phonemes and the corresponding graphemes in the daughter languages. Someone with time on their hands and some knowledge of the field should spend and hour or two fixing this. I won't.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Borrowed" words
Isn't the common English term in linguistics loan word rather than "borrowed word"? It sounds to me as if the article was translated from another language, e. g. Russian. -andy 92.229.117.136 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)