Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Non-Russian Cyrillics (was: I'm back)

Expand Messages
  • Isaac Penzev
    ... Indeed they are. Cyrillic alphabet has its own story and tradition of adaptation to non-Russian langs, but in general it is less flexible to non-standard
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Benct Philip Jonsson girs'epset':

      | FWIW I was sketching on a Neo-Tokharian, which would have
      | Cyrillic as its main or only script. It would need to
      | distinguish /ji/ from /i/ and /jM/ from /M/, and I thought
      | to use І /i/ И /ji/ Ъ /M/ Ь /jM/ (while Ы would seem out of
      | place for /M/ where І was /i/) but I was told those
      | assignments would seem weird to a Russophone.

      Indeed they are. Cyrillic alphabet has its own story and tradition of
      adaptation to non-Russian langs, but in general it is less flexible to
      non-standard appication of graphemes than Latin, IMHO.
      It permits some variation of reading values when they are similar/close in
      pronunciation, like В [w], Г [γ], Л [ɬ] in Chukchee, or К standing for both
      [k] and [q] in Nogay, but ascribing smth like Щ for [θ] would be indeed
      weird.
      North Caucasian orthographies, otoh, extensively use digraphs and trigraphs,
      where the role of modifying element is played by Ъ, Ь and Ӏ ("palochka" in
      the Unicode, "Roman digit one" in the Soviet tradition). Where къ may mean
      [q], хь - [h], тӀ - [t'] etc.

      | Well well
      | there are always the possibility of using Ӥ Ӹ for the
      | preceding /j/.

      Surely there are, though in practice those characters mean:
      Ӥ - non-palatalizing /i/ in Udmurt;
      Ӹ - palatalizing /M/ in Mari [info needs verification].

      | Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

      -- Yitzik
    • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
      li [Isaac Penzev] mi tulis ... How about /i/ as distinct from /ji/ ? And maybe for /ɯ/? Or maybe use the soft sign for /j/? Then
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        li [Isaac Penzev] mi tulis

        > ...
        > | distinguish /ji/ from /i/ and /jM/ from /M/, and I thought
        > | to use І /i/ И /ji/ Ъ /M/ Ь /jM/ (while Ы would seem out of
        > | place for /M/ where І was /i/) but I was told those
        > | assignments would seem weird to a Russophone.
        >
        > Indeed they are. Cyrillic alphabet has its own story and tradition of
        > adaptation to non-Russian langs, but in general it is less flexible to
        > non-standard appication of graphemes than Latin, IMHO.
        >...

        > | Well well
        > | there are always the possibility of using Ӥ Ӹ for the
        > | preceding /j/.
        >
        > Surely there are, though in practice those characters mean:
        > Ӥ - non-palatalizing /i/ in Udmurt;
        > Ӹ - palatalizing /M/ in Mari [info needs verification].


        How about <Ӥ> /i/ as distinct from <И> /ji/ ? And maybe <Ӱ> for /ɯ/? Or maybe use the soft sign <Ь> for /j/? Then there's the use of <Ј> for /j/ as in Serbian.

        If you don't mind venturing a bit from existing encodings, maybe you could come up with some new characters that are based on existing Cyrillic letters.
      • Benct Philip Jonsson
        Sorry for late answer -- real hectic IRL. ... Yes, so it seems, yet the value of И varies rather widely in that its Russian and Ukrainian values are
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry for late answer -- real hectic IRL.

          li_sasxsek@... skrev:
          > li [Isaac Penzev] mi tulis
          >
          >> ... | distinguish /ji/ from /i/ and /jM/ from /M/, and I thought |
          >> to use І /i/ И /ji/ Ъ /M/ Ь /jM/ (while Ы would seem out of | place
          >> for /M/ where І was /i/) but I was told those | assignments would
          >> seem weird to a Russophone.
          >>
          >> Indeed they are. Cyrillic alphabet has its own story and tradition
          >> of adaptation to non-Russian langs, but in general it is less
          >> flexible to non-standard appication of graphemes than Latin, IMHO.
          >> ...

          Yes, so it seems, yet the value of И varies rather widely in that its
          Russian and Ukrainian values are practically opposite.

          >
          >> | Well well | there are always the possibility of using Ӥ Ӹ for the
          >> | preceding /j/.
          >>
          >> Surely there are, though in practice those characters mean: Ӥ -
          >> non-palatalizing /i/ in Udmurt; Ӹ - palatalizing /M/ in Mari [info
          >> needs verification].

          That's a bit less of a problem with my Neo-Tocharian, as (1) it would be
          an Ill Bethisad language and (2) the Cyrillic orthography would have
          been devised already in the 19th century and (3) the Russian spelling
          reform of 1918 probably never happened *there*, and (4) Soviet language
          policies surely never happened *there*, so any difference between
          Ӥ Ӹ and И Ы will be dependent on the difference between І and Ї in
          Church Slavic, which I suppose will be the same as in Ukrainian and
          Rusyn, i.e. І /i/ and Ї /ji/.

          BTW, Yitzik, does Ї always stand after a vowel in Ukrainian and
          Rusyn?

          I see that Rusyn has a three-way distinction І /i/, И /I/ and Ы /i\/;
          and thus it may not be totally over the top to assign the values
          І /i/, И /jM/, Ы /M/ in Neo-Tocharian -- the general principle
          being that И is 'intermediate' between І and Ы? I think that a
          distinction /i/<>/ji/ after consonants might not maintain itself.

          > How about <Ӥ> /i/ as distinct from <И> /ji/ ? And maybe <Ӱ> for
          > /ɯ/? Or maybe use the soft sign <Ь> for /j/? Then there's the use
          > of <Ј> for /j/ as in Serbian.

          In the light of what Yitzik said I don't think so -- especially not
          in the 19th century, and if the orthography were devised by a monk
          versed in Church Slavic; he may adopt ІИЫ for sounds in the [i]..[M]
          range, and *maybe* devise Ӥ /jI/ and Ӹ /jM/ based on the analogy of Ї.
          He *may* also adopt Ъ for /@/ or /V/ and just *maybe* then apply
          Ь to the same sound after palatalized consonants, and then an even
          stronger *maybe* he would use the Combining Cyrillic Palatalization
          diacritic for palatalized consonants before other consonants or word
          finally. How aware would a 19th century Russian monk be of the jers
          as actual vowels in Church Slavic? After all the orthography may
          make do with not distinguishing zero and /@/ after palatalized
          consonants. The older orthography based on Classical Tocharian
          would be even less well adapted to Neo-Tocharian (think Tibetan!)

          The risk/chance of a 19th century Russian monk adopting J is probably
          very slight. After all Vuk Karadžić was a radical of sorts; my yet
          unnamed monk wouldn't be.

          > If you don't mind venturing a bit from existing encodings, maybe you
          > could come up with some new characters that are based on existing
          > Cyrillic letters.

          Well, I am for practical reasons rather stuck with what Unicode offers.

          BTW Yitzik, do you know the values of Ԁ KOMI DE and Ԃ KOMI DJE
          (U+0501 and U+0503) and how they relate to Д?

          They will probably not do anyway for the t/T and d/D distinctions
          I'll try for Neo-Tocharian. Fita is probably a possible choice for
          /T/; I'm thinking of Ѕ for /D/, but am wholly unsure how appropriate
          it may be perhaps З С for /D/ /T/ against ЗЬ СЬ or З҄ С҄ for /z/ /s/
          and ЖЬ ШЬ or Ж҄ Ш҄ for /z\/ /s\/ as the merged reflexes of */z;/Z;/ and
          */s;/S;/ of my putative Middle Tocharian. (For those who wonder
          Neo-Toch voiced obstruents come from Tocharian B nasals + obstruents.)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.