Talk:Gothic alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
"Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

i trust that you guys have done your research: most lists show the Gothic with the TH as WH & v.v.

Contents

[edit] script origins explanation

I'd suggest moving the text discussing whether the script came from Greek, Latin or whatever to a separate section towards the end. Most people will want to get a quick overview of what this is about, then see an example, and then get the details. Just an idea.

[edit] Suggestion.

I'm having trouble saving the other article right now (/Temp). I'm getting an SQL error. Here's what I want to submit: --Kesuari 14:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[It worked today so I've removed the text. --Kesuari 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] iuja

the Unicode specs give "iuja" for the z letter, but I was unable to verify this. Rather, the letter seems to have been called ezec. I trust the Patrologia Latina better than Unicode on this, and will therefore change it, but I would like to know where the iuja originated... dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode chart

Can anybody make a Unicode table similar to those found at other alphabet articles? I see the PDF but before I download a Gothic font and copy it does anybody have a font already? (Yes, I have Windows 2000 so I do have Unicode writing capabilities and I do have Arial Unicode MS which doesn't seem to cover Gothic) Wikiacc 21:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fonts?

Has anybody had *any* luck getting any font including the Gothic alphabet to work with Mozilla (Seamonkey, 1.7.11) under Windows XP? I've tried and installed all the fonts linked on got:Wikipedia:Gothic Unicode Fonts, as well as some more mentioned in the gothic-l Yahoo group, but without any luck whatsoever. Internet Explorer and Opera also suffer from the same problems, so I'm pretty sure it's not just Mozilla acting up.

Any help would be very appreciated. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Gothic fonts are in Plane 1 of Unicode, which is not as well supported as the Basic Multi Lingual Plane. It could be that WinXP just doesn't support it, in which case you just might not have any luck. But I don't really know anything about WinXP. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm using Mozilla under Windows XP and I can see the Gothic letters since I downloaded Code2001. I can't get them to work in Microsoft Word (where when I look at "Insert symbol" for Code2001 there don't seem to be any Gothic letters), but it works in Mozilla. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Gothic letter in the edit tools box

The Gothic letter ƕ is now available in the edit tools box. Click on the drop-down menu and select "Indo-European"; it's the last one. þ is there too. --Angr (tɔk) 09:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Futhark removed

I have removed a comment from the section on the letters. After the phrase, "a few letters are innovated to accurately express Gothic phonology", the following words appeared: "(other than the Elder Futhark even featuring letters for the labiovelars)".

I understand from this that the Elder Futhark featured letters for the labiovelars. What I don't understand entirely is how it links with its context, either topically or grammatically. The lack of comma after Futhark gives the impression that the Futhark has LV letters, while Gothic doesn't, whereas the reverse is true. The main puzzle is the use of the words other than. I suspect that the writer is not a native English speaker, and is using other to mean unlike.

I am guessing the writer intended to say, ...a few letters are innovated to express more accurately the Gothic phonology, including special letters for the labiovelars, which are not found in the Elder Futhark.

As I am not sure that this is the writer's intent, I leave it to him/her to make the change. Copey 2 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

the writer's intent was, of course, to express the fact that the Gothic alphabet has labiovelars while the Elder Futhark do not: you would have been most welcome to replace the offending 'other than' with 'unlike'. The point is that the Gothic names for LV letters (quaithra, hwair) have no precedent in runic letter names. q∀p (ᛎ) 14:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] þ,hw and the Greek alphabet

It's surprising that discussions on the derivation of the Gothic alphabet never seem to take note of the fact that while þ has the alphabetic position and (later Greek) pronunciation of θ (theta), it has the form of ψ (psi); and conversely, hw has the alphabetic position of ψ, but the old uncial form of θ. Has anyone seen any discussion of this? It makes me wonder how Wulfila wrote Greek. Copey 2 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ligature

how is ƕ not a ligature? it's a straightforward contraction of h+w. dab (ᛏ) 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The same way that w is not one (a straightforward contraction of v+v or u+u). Hwair is never used to contract h+w, but only to transcribe a single letter from another alphabet. I cannot find any sources of Hwair being used as a ligature, i.e. outside of Gothic transcriptions. -- Jordi·✆ 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
hwair isn't even used anywhere outside Gothic. Yes it is a "letter" but that doesn't change its status as ligature, and is thus perfectly at home at Ligature_(typography)#Letters_originating_as_ligatures, together with w, I agree. Æ is a ligature, I am sure you'll agree, and still has "letter" status in some languages. "ligature" isn't the opposite of "letter", it's a typographical term. ƕ doesn't contrast with hw in Gothic: it is a ligature typographically, and a digraph orthographically, and represents a phoneme linguistically/semiotically. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a useful categorization; Æ is a ligature because in many languages it's a connected form of AE. Hwair, on the other hand, may look like a ligature, but it doesn't connect two different letters.--Prosfilaes 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Hwair is not H+W, as it cannot be used as a ligature: no-one would ever write Higƕater. Æ in modern English is a ligature, as it can replace the letter combination ae seemingly at will: mediaeval can be written mediæval etc.. But in Icelandic AE is not a ligature, but a letter. Not that it is authorative in any way, but even the Unicode Consortium does not call Hwair a ligature: neither the lowercase nor the uppercase form has the formal or informal alias LATIN LIGATURE HW. Compare to AE which can be a ligature: it has the name LATIN SMALL LETTER AE (letter, not ligature because of languages like Icelandic) and the formal alias LATIN SMALL LIGATURE AE.
Hwair has the same status as w, which nobody calls a ligature even though it clearly is v+v, as it is never used as one. Ergo, Hwair is not a ligature, it just resembles one. -- Jordi·✆ 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason AE is labelled as it is in Unicode is as much due to politics as anything; it was named one, then the other, and they finally choose one (and said that they would never ever change a name again, no matter how wrong or absurd) and put the other as a formal alias, since it was the Unicode 1.0 name.--Prosfilaes 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
True (Unicode naming is absured), but this does point out that no-one since Unicode 1.1.0 (June 1993), [1] has ever seen a need for a ligature hw alias, as Hwair is never called a ligature. It is a letter, not a ligature. -- Jordi·✆ 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It would make perfect sense to instruct a typesetting engine to render hv as ƕ in a language="got" span, hence, in Gothic transliteration (and nowhere else), ƕ is a ligature of hv. (click here for the long version) dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
And if you were going to be dealing with ASCII text, it would make perfect sense to instruct a typesetting engine to render th in Middle English as þ. But that doesn't make either of them ligatures, or such behavior the correct behavior when dealing with non-ASCII mangled text. Hwair may have arose as a typographic ligature, but it's not a ligature. Ligatures do contrast with letters; ligatures are typographical features that don't typically appear in handwriting and don't appear at the conceptual level of text, whereas letters do appear in handwriting and at the conceptual level of text. Handwritten Gothic in the Latin script would have hwair, thus it's not a ligature.--Prosfilaes 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Why does this article not have any references? WP policy stipulates articles must be based on verifiable published books. Having a section of external links at the bottom is not sufficient.
Arbo talk 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't? That's not the most carefully followed policy in Wikipedia, and nobody really enforces it on minor, uncontroversial articles like this one. http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch13.pdf is one source; http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/aa_texts.html has some older books.--Prosfilaes 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/t/Talk%7EGothic_alphabet_fdd5.html"