Talk:Cyrillic script
It was my impression that a few of the characters of Cyrillic were taken from the Hebrew alphabet, particularly sh and shch (which resemble the Hebrew shin) and possibly ts (which resembles tzadeh rather more loosely). Is there any substance to this? --Fubar Obfusco
- I've heard the claim before, and it sounds plausible enough, but I haven't come across it in a reputable source yet. I'll check... --Brion
If this checks out, it'll originally apply to the Glagolitic alphabet, so check there. -- Toby Bartels 03:34 20 May 2003 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have, say, a gif/png image of the Cyrillic alphabet for the benefit of people whose browsers don't show up the letters properly? Magnus 12:16 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
I'll work on this. In the meantime, nobody else should hesitate to work on this, because when I do it, it'll be in one fell swoop. -- Toby 08:06 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
What does "Glagolitic" mean? -- Zoe
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
- Glagolitic
- (Or GLAGOLITSA; Slavonic glagol, a word; glagolati, to speak).
- An ancient alphabet of the Slavic languages, also called in Russian bukvitsa. The ancient Slavonic when reduced to writing seems to have been originally written with a kind of runic letters, which, when formed into a regular alphabet, were called the Glagolitic, that is the signs which spoke. St. Cyril, who, together with his brother St. Methodius, translated the Greek liturgy into Slavonic when he converted the Bulgarians and Moravians, invented the form of letters derived from the Greek alphabet with which the church Slavonic is usually written. This is known as the Cyrillic alphabet or Kirillitsa. -- Derek Ross
- Can someone incorporate that into the article? -- Zoe
- Why don't I incorporate it into Glagolitic alphabet? -- Toby 08:06 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
Can someone more knowledgeable add a reference to the Mongolian alphabet, which is also Cyrillic?
Also, a description of Soviet orthography reforms would be interesting (I believe two letters were eliminated). Yaronf 22:30 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Do you think that it would be good if contents of the "As used in various languages" section would be split and moved into articles about Russian alphabet, Bulgarian alphabet, Macedonian alphabet etc. as is the case with Latin alphabet (see Alphabets derived from the Latin)? Then this article could concentrate more on the history of Cyrillic alphabet and similar things. Nikola 07:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This is a very good idea, however I'd rather be talking not about splitting, rather about copying/moving to the (missing) articles on individual alphabets.
- The individual articles may go in greater details, while this article must keep a reasonable amount of comparative information, which I find useful very often. Mikkalai 18:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)