Talk:Glagolitic script/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rovas and glagolitic script similarities

http://wiki.rovas.info/Glagolitic_script — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.69 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Glagolitic Ba looks Chinese to me.

The box lists the origin of the Glagolitic "Ba" as unknown. The following is the Pablo entry, based, I imagine, on CEDICT.

巴 Bā Ba state during Zhou dynasty (in east of modern Sichuan)/abbr. for east Sichuan or Chongqing/surname Ba/abbr. for Palestine or Palestinian/abbr. for Pakistan

fwiw.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Asian roots?

(Malayalam: വടക്കുനോക്കിയന്ത്രം - striking overall graphic resemblance! - üser:Altenmann >t 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

All alphabets in South Asia came from Brahmin, which is a direct Syriac Script. It looks very archaic Syriac, which might make it a form of Older Armenian or other types of Scripts the Christian clergy used. Take a look at the modern Ethiopian script, although initially derived from a South Arabian musnad (itself closer to an Aramiac variant, opposed to the later Syriac), Ethiopian later adopted some of the similar characters in Armenian, this might be due to a common early Christian influence. Those letters look very similar to Armenian or maybe a Greek christian script that was used to by Christians in a different evolution than the main Greek Alphabet (completely different) despite sharing a common origin at Phoenician. Vikbalic (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Refimprove

Large sections of the history section are unreferenced and seem speculative. Parts of the history section seem to depend on the theory that Cyril and Methodius invented the Glagolitic alphabet, but it's disputed whether they invented that or the Cyrillic. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ligatures

I was told that the similarity among letter pieces in Glagolitic allowed more ligatures than the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets use, but this is not mentioned in the article. --Error (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As this is my first day, I am unfamiliar with the desired scope of Wikipedia articles. As happens to be one of my areas of expertise, I could compose something on Glagolitic ligatures. I imagine a diagram of common ligatures would be useful. But tell me, do more well-developed articles on scripts usually have a paragraph on ligatures, or a full section? Inatan (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. typographic ligature has an extensive section on Latin-alphabet ligatures, but just a mere line on Glagolitic. If you write something, please put it in both places. Start small and then you can do as much as you like. If you have a lot to contribute, you could end up doing a whole article on Glagolitic ligatures. Since you are an expert, you could also mention the existence of angular and round letters, which, AFAIK, have different ligatures. Diagrams would be good if you can provide them. --Error (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Error! Round Glagolitic certainly has the fewest ligatures. Not much more than Greek, but that is to be expected, for it is the primitive form of the script. Angular Glagolitic, in its most elegant form in decorated uncial MSS, has about 250-300 ligatures composed of 2-5 joined characters each (to be found throughout the corpus). In the cursive form, this number increases, perhaps exponentially. In the future, all this will certainly merit a separate article. A small section and graphs sound like a good starting point. It may be a year before I am ready to take any larger steps. But I look forward to editing with you! Inatan (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 06:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Glagolitic alphabet → Glagolitic script – For Cyrillic, Cyrillic script is used to encompass all varieties, and Cyrillic alphabet redirects there, while modern derivatives have their own articles, together with a page on Cyrillic alphabets. I propose that Glagolitic alphabet be moved to Glagolitic script, with Glagolitic alphabet redirecting to Glagolitic script instead of the other way around. Inatan (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

AGREE. This move makes sense to me. Carter (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hieronymian version "resolutely disproved

The quoted passage does not "resolutely disprove" anything, it seems rather to assume that the Jerome version is untrue, and then uses words to that effect. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Who did told you that bros Kiril and Metody are from Bysantium?Seens you did this fake page ,can you tell why both Kiril and Metody have Bulgarian names? If they are not Bulgarians but form Bysantuim?Glagolitic alphabet is Bulgarian alphabet made in the capital of Bulgaria, Pliska in the castel of the Bulgarian King Boris!Shame all of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.122.212.132 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda

I suggest abstracted from pan-Slavic propaganda and search for the origins of the alphabet in other languages. Pan-Slavists do not row with a twist of facts and sources like inventing etymology with Slavic words, inventing historical events, but in fact it is easy to find Latin or German roots and historical etymology in them. This alphabet is something between a Sarmatian and Alan alphabet and the ancient Bulgarian language. It is especially interesting to study rings in letters, they are clearly functional, like diactrics, vocalizations, stress definitions. The Slavs also clearly recorded the verb at the level of "W" let it be the letter "Ш" [Sk / Sh] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.11.141 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Kher letter

This is svastic. O - Sun and 4 ray L Г

95.133.42.118 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ⱄ

This is "ـعـ" ear ===> all the rest will be false 91.124.46.246 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ⰳ

Ⰳ this is h cursive. Some read γ - v on begining word and h/kh in else parth word

Glagolitsa/Glagolica

There seems to be some unmotivated incongruence with the use of these two spelling. "Glagolica" is used in modern croatian and other slavic languages and is probably used by some sources or as a standarized way of transliteration, but can be misleading or confusing for some readers. I'm not really familiar with guidelines on these matters, but I coudn't find a good reason justifying the difference in the use of one form or the other across the article.Personuser (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ligature of sha over tvrьdo

Ligature of sha (Ⱎ) over tvrьdo (Ⱅ) is .
Ⱋ is ligature of sha (Ⱎ) over črьvъ (Ⱍ).
ﺀ (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Origin of Djervь Ⰼ

An early (end of the 10th century or beginning of the 11th century) form of djervь ⰼ, which can be seen in the Codex Zographensis (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZographensisColour.jpg - fourth letter from the left in the title), is very similar to a γΓ ligature which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_minuscule (third ligature from the left in the row 'Γ' and the column 'Minuscule with ligatures').

BukyMale (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to make sense, since from what I recall djervь was initially used mainly/exclusively in greek loan words for a gamma in front of front vowels or something similar. We would still need a proper source to include it in the article and the fact that some sources don't give this explanation suggests this isn't as simple as it seems. Personuser (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Vajs J. Rukovet hlaholske paleografie p. 67, samaritan Jod seems fitting; Taylor proposed δ+ι, and Jagić γι, no mention of γγ. The referenced works for greek origins, which I couldn't check and may contain more details, are Глаголическое письмо, Энциклопедия славянской филологии, в. III, СПБ., 1911 pp.86,88 and Сборникъ Pyc. Археол. Общества p.39. Naturally for some serious research the presence and shape of that ligature in single documents from a determinate area/period should be considered. Personuser (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yor and more

The OCS name seems to be Jerъ, Jor is used today to distinguish it from Jerь. Still not sure whether this naming is old enough to be CS. Also Jestъ uses "J" in both forms, while Jerъ, Jery, Jerь and others have an "Y" in the CS form. In general the CS forms use a different transliteration, with "y" for both "j" and Jery. I don't think there's really a reason for this different treatment, but at least we should stick to one single approach. Personuser (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to put some order in a hopefully balanced way. Having two different translitteration seems odd, but is probably a good compromise. One of the most discutible choises was probably "Yerɨ". Given that we are probably talking about the croatian redaction a simple "Yeri" like "Mislete" seems a viable option. Other discrepancies between the OCS and CS name seem to make sense, "Oht" is still weird and I frankly don't know what is it supposed to stand for. Personuser (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Letter images

I added images for square letters to the table and mostly checked the result with a table in Vanda Babič, 2003: Učbenik stare cerkvene slovanščine. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Oddelek za slavistiko. It should be a reliable source albeit not optimal, specially on en-wp. I also changed the image for Frьtъ, to better show the difference from Thita and accidentally submitted the edit with an incomplete edit summary. In the table I used and Vajs, Josef the two letters are treated as the same, apart from their different Greek model. The table I used has squared variants for Ju, Ižica and Thita (under Frьtъ) and two variants for Iže, for which I didn’t find an image on commons, but not for Jery, Ensь, Jensь, Onsь and Jonsь. These letters don’t have a numeric value and their absence is consistent with characteristics of the Croatian redaction, but stating that they weren’t used at all requires a better/clearer source. Other differences probably fall within the variability of letter shape and may be better addressed at commons, namely round Tvrьdo, Jerъ, Jery and Jerь could have a shape more similar to Onъ, square Jerъ and Jerь have a completely different shape (and probably function, at least in later periods), something like could be more representative for square Jatь. Personuser (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cubberley also has a mostly identical and more accessible table, which can be used for reference. It doesn't have a square Thita. Personuser (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Names in the lead

Recently there was a lot of, mostly positive, activity in the names in other languages part of the first sentence. I think the Bulgarian/Macedonian/Croatian/Czech/Slovak version was somewhat well based on places where glagolitic was actually used and gave a good sample of how different Slavic languages are written and transliterated in modern times without being too bloated, which I think is really cool for an article about the first Slavic script and better than having just the Bulgarian name, as things stood some time ago, or having no modern name at all; this is nevertheless a poor argument.

There wasn’t any clear discussion about the criteria for inclusion of different languages at the start of the article and some edits about Montenegrin-Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian weren’t really an example of productive editing, the recent adding of Polish seems, at least superficially, even more questionable. I think no one familiar with the subject would doubt that glagolitic played a bigger role in the Croatian tradition (I personally found calling the language Serbo-Croatian and leaving the name just in Latin script a good compromise, but it didn’t last long and I don’t really care) and Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire were different and at least geographically larger entities compared to the modern usually associated states/nationalities (for example I just recently found out that Ohrid is in modern Macedonia).

Based on my personal position I would push for adding the name in Slovenian (some arguably Croatian fellows vandalized churches in Slovenia with glagolitic writings about preferring to drink wine rather than working, using a “Slovene” word, a latin calque, “miza”). I also know of a printed glagolitic missal from a church in a traditionally Slovene speaking part of Italy and I don’t think adding the Italian name for glagolitic to the lead would be a good idea, even with appropriate sources.

A simple, but probably not optimal, solution would be to leave the names in modern languages to a later name section, where they would gain less unwanted attention and space wouldn't be a problem (I guess even a German name could be added to such a section just because of the amount of literature about the subject in that language and Russian seems a no brainer; not sure in which sense is Russia currently referred to in the lead). That said, I hope that even some less diplomatic discussion about criteria for inclusion of modern names in the first sentence could lead at least to better sources for the history section and the lead (which don’t seem that bad, but actually need better inline sources and more attention than this topic deserves).

I’m also wondering, mostly as a curiosity, why there’s a jotated “l” in the Croatian name, if it’s a regular reflex or due to (regular or not) analogy with the present tense or the word “glagoljaši”, and if it’s already present in early writings of the name (guess the difference would be just a diacritic in early? glagolitic).

Cu-wp seems to support the notion that the name for the script was Kyrillovica in OCS, but is really poor at providing sources and this seems a simplification at best, still worth mentioning if sourced. Personuser (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to be getting a little out of control. MOS:LEADLANG says "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." Adding every possible language in the lede doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure, if it were reduced to one language, which would make the most sense (although going with Serbo-Croatian in Latin script makes sense to me). Perhaps adding an Etymology section and including the various modern terms in the various successor states to Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire as part of that discussion would be more productive. Carter (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD ... I went ahead and did that. There's now space in the "Name and etymology" section for other languages, if desired. Carter (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Boldness was probably the best choise in this case. I doubt there would be any consensus about any other solution, the MOS is quite clear and there aren't really solid enough arguments for trying to enforce any single language or even a couple of them. Etymology was also a nice addition since there is a missing step between "glagolica" and "glagolitic" (well, at least when I was younger I was asking myself if the name had something to do with rocks); sorry if I have been too verbose. Personuser (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Innocent IV letter sources

I added a source for the letter by Innocent IV to Philip allowing the use of glagolitic script. I wasn't able to find the original text in prominent online sources for papal/catholic documents, probably besause of the age and/or being it a rescript and/or my incopetence. Another one I was able to find is also in croatian and has an image, but is more about the way it was published/translated in croatian literature (the abstract is also in english, but difficult to spot). An english one mentions it, not sure how reliable it is and it's more generic. I opted for the first one mostly because it has the latin text and it deals with legal aspects, it should be enough for it's pupose in this article. The latin text is mentioned as "Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Reg. Vat. n. 21, f. 522rv" and should be published in "Raynaldus, Annales Ecclesiastici ad an. 1248, XXI, 410-411", I couldn't check either, but the later should be more accessible to people not leaving near Rome. Just thought this could be useful for someone looking for a better source (secondary ones are still preferred on wp) for this or other articles or is just curious and/or has troubles understanding croatian. Personuser (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)