Talk:Glagolitic alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Glagolitic alphabet as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] 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

When using this entry, do compare the German version of the article ("Glagoliza"), because some informations are outdated! - H. Miklas (Vienna), 10/05/06.

[edit] Menchi's suggestion

Now with the table and illustration, the article has truly become a useful tool! A few things that can be improved:

  1. Image:GlagolitsaGlagol.gif seems cut off a bit on the right.
  2. What were the names of the following Cyrillic letters? What do they look like?
    1. The abolished Cyrillic letters derived from jat and izhitsa.
    2. 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?
  3. 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! ^_^

  1. I'll recrop it.
  2. 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.
    1. "Jat" (or "Yat" in the transliteration style used on Cyrillic alphabet) and "Izhitsa" ^_^.
    2. The Cyrillic alphabet still was still using the Glagolitic names when those letters died out from Cyrillic, at least in all of my sources.
  3. "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 shows that izhitsa in modern Russian is called sẏnod (synod), and its transliteration is ẏ (y with dot above). From the same website, 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)

Is this some kind of a joke? Are you people really this stupid? The name of the letter V in Cyrillic is ižica. Synod is just an example of a word that contains ižica. The letters Č, C, Š and ŠČ are derived from Hebrew as was discovered centuries ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.77.160 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2005.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 (email address removed)

Removed email address. JoeTalkWork 08:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

It is all coming from Coptic alphabet. Included Azy it is Aluf, Buky - bait, Vedy - Vaw etc. Names of latter's changed with Slavic words. It is clear for me. BTW. 'Glagolit'(with soft 't'), mean 'to speak' and 'Glagolitza' (tz - like tsadik in Hebrew) come from this word. It is for Etymologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.119.248 (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Juro

[edit] 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)


As I understand it, the phrase (in Croatian) is "Ja znajući slova velim, dobro je živjeti na zemlji" This corresponds to the letter names from Az to Zemlja. In English, the phrase means "I, knowing the letters, say that it is good to live on Earth".

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Characteristics

In this section is a description of the letter "jest" or "yest" showing as the modern Cyrillic character the letter 'е'. This letter still exists in nearly a mirrored Glagolitic form in the Ukrainian alphabet as 'є'. At least I think it's the same letter. If it is, how should it go into the table? Vivafelis 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between Ее and Єє is significant only in Ukrainian writing; in all other languages that use Cyrillic, they are just variants of the same letter — e. g. some stylized Russian fonts show Ее as Єє. — Monedula 05:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the turned Э is a more recently-introduced variation of Е/Є. —Michael Z. 2005-08-30 14:36 Z
Monedula, I understand that the difference is only significant in Ukrainian, but the sound value of the letters are mirrored from other Cyrillic alphabets. Such that the Russian Ее are the Ukrainian Єє (both make Yeh sound) and the Russian Ээ are the Ukrainian Ее (both make Eh sound). Perhaps it would be worthwhile to note this mirroring in the table in order to keep it complete. Then again, maybe not. Vivafelis 15:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
In the context of Glagolitic and the contemporary, very early Cyrillic, these are all essentially the same letter. In the old days the style, and I think even the facing of the letter wasn't used consistently. The differentiation of both Russian and Ukrainian letters E and Ye are later innovations. It doesn't hurt to show them here, but the explanation belongs in the article on the Cyrillic alphabet. —Michael Z. 2005-09-7 19:50 Z

[edit] Glagolitic fonts

I still cannot see Unicode Glagolitic characters in this section, although I have Unicode fonts installed. I usualy see Japanese or Chinese scripts. I use Opera 8 and WinXP. RockyMM 18:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have Damese or Dilyan fonts installed? As far as I know, these are the only Unicode 4.1 Glagolitic fonts available. All others either use Glagolitic glyphs for the Cyrillic range, use the Unicode "private use" area, or use some other non-standard range of code points for Glagolitic, and probably won't display this table correctly.
It may also be some other problem with Windows or Opera not supporting the new Unicode range; I use a Mac. —Michael Z. 2005-09-7 19:55 Z

[edit] Literature section not in English

Could someone please provide some translation for the "literature" section: if you don't read whatever language that is, it's not even possible to discern whether the source being used is a book, an academic journal or even some sort of blog. For example, does "knjiga 57" mean "chapter 57", or "volume 57", or what? If you want to use {{Book reference}}, {{Journal reference}} or {{Web reference}}, that would be great. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any of those languages enough to translate (quite a selection), but knjiga 57 is 'volume 57'. When I have a bit of time, I'll add the templates, which should help decipher. —Michael Z. 2006-01-10 19:38 Z

Actually, knjiga means book in croatian.

It's a common word in many Slavic languages, right? 惑乱 分からん 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liturgy Language

I assume part of the article are written by someone with Croatian view on the histroy.

The Slavic language was used in the Bulgarian church since IX c., when it became the only non-traditional language allowed by the Vatican for that purpose. In fact, the need for a new alphabet which can be used by the church lead to the creation of the glagolitza. Please, refer to the article "Bulgarian Chuirch":

"A Greek liturgy offered by a Byzantine clergy furthered neither the cultural development of the Bulgarians, nor the consolidation of the Bulgarian state; it would have eventually resulted in the loss of both the identity of the people and the statehood of Bulgaria. Thus, the arrival of the most distinguished disciples of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Bulgaria in 886 came as a highly beneficial opportunity. Boris I entrusted the disciples with the task to instruct the future Bulgarian clergy in the Glagolitic alphabet and the Slavonic liturgy prepared by Cyril and based on the vernacular of the Bulgarian Slavs from the region of Thessaloniki. In 893, the Greek clergy was expelled from the country and the Greek language was replaced with the Slav-Bulgarian vernacular."

I agree. I think the History section needs some reworking to be truthful and at least marginally NPOV. It also doesn't mention a very important achievement of St. Cyril - defending the alphabet in front of the Pope, who recognized it and blessed it as early as 868, that being one of the early examples of using the vernacular (not Greek, Latin or Hebrew) in service. mitkouwcad 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in film

Was this also not the basis for the Naboo alphabet or the lettering used on droids by the Trade Federation in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace?

[edit] Paradox

Being subdued, as a nation, to Roman hegemony (Roman Catholic church and so on) defies the reason for creation and use of the Glagolitic alphabet. (back then in the IX century hegemonies could easily provide Slavs with hegemonual Latin or Greek alphabet, but the purpose of Christianity is democracy - the self-rule of people as contrary to hegemony (democracy - orthodox Christian term (originaly 'δημοκρατία')), which regarding this issue implies acting against cultural hegemony (which is the only reason Konstantin bothered with construction of Glagolitic alphabet in the first place...))

[edit] Scanned image from 1591

An editor tried to include an image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Rocca.PNG) but did not follow the right procedure. It's a great picture. Someone who knows how to do images should include it on the main page.

Also, we need better information about the two medieval books in the references. I'm not sure about the importance of the text about St. Jerome - maybe the article would be better without it. Cbdorsett 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments for Szac:

Please do not be offended by the deletion of your contributions by myself and other editors. Allow me to explain.
I appreciate your efforts to make this page more comprehensive and interesting. However, Wikipedia has some strict policies about new additions. First of all, what you add must have a citation. For example, you put in something about the Polish meaning of 'talking faces'. This could just be an accident of language, or it could be a theory that is actually published by a reputable scholar. If a scholar wrote about it, and thinks it is likely, then we need a proper source to the book. It does not matter what language the source is in.
I removed your image because it did not conform to Wikipedia policies. Please see what I wrote on the article's talk page. I like the image and would like to see it in the article. There is a specific method to upload images, which includes statement of (1) the fact that the book is in the public domain, and (2) that the photographer who created the image licenses it to Wikipedia under the terms of the GNU agreement. There is also a particular way to link to the photo once it has been uploaded.
What you wrote about Benedykt Chmielowski seems interesting, and it may even be relevant. However, I had a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Even more important, there was no citation. Which book of Chmielowski was this stuff found in? What page? When and where was the book published?
I really don't think we need Rocca's book in here. We all agree that the alphabet came from Kyril and Methodius. Now we know that 12th-century Croatian scribes thought Jerome created it, and that this legend persisted as late as 1812. Why do we need a listing of medieval books that perpetuated the now-discredited myth?
I would like to know more about the ligatures. Can you provide enough previously-published information to fill a paragraph? Is there a public-domain collection of ligatures we can upload as an image? Did the Kazakhs really use Glagolitic letters? If so, that's very interesting, and we need not only a cite but an image from one of the 17th-century documents you mentioned. If Glagolitic was preferred for legal documents, which country did this apply to? Is there a published citation that supports this assertion. Again, I think it is terribly interesting, and very relevant to the article.
If you can provide the backbone - the basic data, I will be very happy to help you with the English. When we are finished, maybe you can translate the article back into your native language (Polish?) and contribute it to the appropriate foreign-language Wikipedia. Cbdorsett 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding that picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Rocca.PNG ...Bringing in connection Illirians and Glagolitic alphabet... ...Someone being in risk to fall for diabolical provocataion would say that paper on that scan/photo was THE paper originaly written by Ernest Scribbler.

[edit] Infobox formatting

Something is wrong with the formatting of the infobox, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Dgorsline 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem started when some formatting was changed on {{Infobox Writing system}}.. —dima/talk/ 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode glagolitic alphabet

Why was rounded glagolitic alphabet used in Unicode instead of angular? (angular is original right? (and it certanly looks better))

That is your font. Unicode does not specify the style of text, only which character is represented. I'm sure there are (or at least there could be) both round and square Glagolitic fonts, whose letters would be represented by the same Unicode code points. —Michael Z. 2007-07-26 20:58 Z

[edit] Slavonic -> Slavic

We have to change the words Slavonic to form Slavic, because it distorts the meaning, especially now, when there were discovered Glagolitici inscriptions in Slavonia. Kubura 07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of word Glagol

"The name of the alphabet comes from the Old Slavic glagolŭ" - wasn't it "golgolŭ"? With later typical South-Slavic change ol>la before consonant (like in South-Slavic "glas" from Old-Slavic golsŭ "sound")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.244.139.49 (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of the word Glagolitsa

I'm going to have to revert changes of Glagolitsa > Glagolica. According to WP:CYR, I believe our transliteration of most Slavic languages, including Bulgarian incidentally, converts ц to ts. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 15:18 z

Hi! There exists a scholarly standard for transliteration of Cyrillic script. See Scientific transliteration and ISO9. The first page also says Most countries using Cyrillic script now have adopted GOST 7.79 instead [for romanisation], which is equivalent to ISO 9. I think an encyclopedia should use the most consistent scholarly standard (regardless of the script in question; so for Indic scripts, this would mean IAST). Regards. NikNovi (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
'“talk:Glagolitic alphabet” is not the place to argue about Wikipedia's general romanization guidelines. We use scientific transliteration for technical linguistics topics, but other methods elsewhere. This is the result of very broad consensus, and a lot of discussion. (And practically no one uses ISO 9.) The encyclopedia respects its readers by making its content accessible, and the typical anglophone would not understand Ševčenko, Xruščëv, or Juščenko at all, so we write Shevchenko, Khrushchev, and Yushchenko.
If you feel otherwise, you could extend the debates at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-05-30 11:23 z
I don't see a need for further discussion - I already said all that I have. I can only remark that the tekst as it is now: Bulgarian глаго́лица (transliterated glagolitsa), Serbian глагољица/glagoljica, Croatian glagoljica, ... is stupid. And the anglophone world will sooner or later have to learn that there are more letters in the Roman alphabet than the 26 letters they use - if not for the sake of the transliteration of Cyrillic, than for the sake of the Slavic languages that are already written in Roman script. NikNovi (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I try to remind myself that I'm writing for the benefit of the reader, rather than looking down on him. I'm not counting on many of en.Wikipedia's readers being literate in Slovenian any time soon, whether their first language is English or not. —Michael Z. 2008-05-30 15:06 z