Talk:Glagolitic script

Other side of what?

2nd para: 'On the other side, Svatopluk I followed the interests of the Frankish Empire and prosecuted the students of Cyril and Methodius.' 'Other side' = Eastern church? In which case, why not say so? Robert P Connolly (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Reworked the sentence based on the Svatopluk I article's mention of the situation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Old East Slavic

@Jingiby

Sporadic instances aside, Glagolitic survived beyond the 12th century as a primary script in Croatian lands alone, although from there a brief attempt at reintroduction was made in the West Slavic area in the 14th century through the Emmaus Benedictine Monastery in Prague, where it survived well into the 15th century, the last manuscript with Glagolitic script dating to 1450–1452. Its use for special applications continued in some Cyrillic areas, for example in the Bologna Psalter (1230-1241), the Sinodalna 895 Menaion (1260), the RPK 312 Gospel (13th), the Karakallou Epistolary (13th), the NBKM 933 Triodion (13th), the Skopje 1511 Octoechos (13th), the BRAN 4.9.39 Miscellany (13th), the Hilandar Chrysorrhoas (13th/14th), the Mazurin 1698 Pandects (13th/14th), the Sofia Psalter (1337), the SANU 55 Epistolary (1366–1367), the RNB F.п.I.2 Psalter (14th), the Čajniče Gospel (late 14th), the Radosav Miscellany (1444–1461), the Prague NM IX.F.38 Psalter (18th) and in the initials of many Old East Slavic manuscripts of the Prophets with Commentary dating to the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Most later use in the Cyrillic world was for cryptographic purposes, such as in the Krushedol Miscellany (15th), the RNB F.п.I.48 Prologue (1456), the Piskarev 59 Isaac (1472), the Shchukin 511 Miscellany (1511) and the Hludov Gospel (17th/18th).

In the above paragraph you reverted my change to:

Sporadic instances aside, Glagolitic survived beyond the 12th century as a primary script in Croatian lands alone, although from there a brief attempt at reintroduction was made in the West Slavic area in the 14th century through the Emmaus Benedictine Monastery in Prague, where it survived well into the 15th century, the last manuscript with Glagolitic script dating to 1450–1452. Its use for special applications continued in some Cyrillic areas, for example in the Bologna Psalter (1230-1241), the Sinodalna 895 Menaion (1260), the RPK 312 Gospel (13th), the Karakallou Epistolary (13th), the NBKM 933 Triodion (13th), the Skopje 1511 Octoechos (13th), the BRAN 4.9.39 Miscellany (13th), the Hilandar Chrysorrhoas (13th/14th), the Mazurin 1698 Pandects (13th/14th), the Sofia Psalter (1337), the SANU 55 Epistolary (1366–1367), the RNB F.п.I.2 Psalter (14th), the Čajniče Gospel (late 14th), the Radosav Miscellany (1444–1461), the Prague NM IX.F.38 Psalter (18th) and in the initials of many manuscripts of the Prophets with Commentary dating to the late 15th and early 16th centuries from the Muscovy and Russia. Most later use in the Cyrillic world was for cryptographic purposes, such as in the Krushedol Miscellany (15th), the RNB F.п.I.48 Prologue (1456), the Piskarev 59 Isaac (1472), the Shchukin 511 Miscellany (1511) and the Hludov Gospel (17th/18th).

The term "Old East Slavic" works well for earlier manuscripts, but the upper cutoff is far from agreed upon. You can cite sources in favour of your choice, or sources in opposition, with many arguing for a "Middle Russian" in between etc. But none of this matters, because none of the manuscripts in question were written in East Slavic aside from marginal notes. They are Church Slavonic. If you have no further objections, please undo your reversion. Ivan (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank yo for this explanation, Ivan. Jingiby (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

General question: I can understand the cultural and political reasons for the conflicts between this and other scripts, but not why they arose. If some other linguistic group uses a different script, who cares, really? Jackaroodave (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References