Talk:Yat

I wrote something about the yat in Bulgarian and I think ther should be a separate article about the yat border but I'm not much of a linguist and I don't dare to write it. It will be good to see it still. Miko Stavrev.

Yes, but should it be here? This is supposed to be a page about the 'letter' yat, not the 'phoneme' yat. Might I propose moving all the historical phonology to a more appropriate place? (Not that I can find one, at present, but in general Wikipedia keeps writing systems and sound systems distinct, and this is how it ought to be.)Лудольф (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerning this: "taking all the dialects into account, the sounds remained predominantly distinct until the eighteenth century, at least under stress, and are distinct to this day in some localities".

Is there a reference for the existence of present-day dialects that distinguish Е from Ѣ in pronunciation? 18.100.0.94 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jotated jat'

The glyph for "iotated yat" provided by the "Slavonic" template (ꙓ) is incorrect. The jotated jat' has ascenders of equal height. The glyph in which the left-hand ascender reaches only to the cross-bar is a form of ѣ common in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Russian MSS and the ancestor of the modern italic glyph illustrated on the main page. Лудольф (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The glyph is provided by one of the fonts on your system—if it's unacceptable, then you can un-install the font. The template merely tries to select from a range of fonts which have the best coverage of the new Unicode 5.1 Slavonic fonts. You can see the details in the tables at wikt:Appendix talk:Old Cyrillic alphabet. —Michael Z. 2009-01-06 15:17 z

Split proposal

I disagree with the split proposal in that I don't think there should be a page about a single sound. However, I can get understand concern that this article should be dealing with a letter and not the actual phoneme. It's possible that tangential information should move to a phonology page somewhere or to Proto-Slavic language. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and split, and also reduced the length of the phonological description, much of which is already available elsewhere, e.g. Shtokavian dialect. While I agree that the material on phonology would be better incorporated into a page on Slavonic historical phonology, there is at present no such page (Proto-Slavic language does not deal with its subsequent evolution). When somebody writes one, they are welcome to merge. Лудольф (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You've also removed details concerning the historical usage of the yat letter in various languages in the process. For example, you cant's include the Romanian yat (eati) in the phonology article, as it's not a slavonic phoneme.--Ayceman (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There actually is a page discussing Slavonic historical phonology, albeit largely incomplete: Swadesh list of Slavic languages. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the article on Štokavian dialect, as this page contains bulk of information not present there, that pertains also to other non-Štokavian dialects. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to discuss both the letter and the phoneme in the same article. Genius who removed a bunch of painfully written content should consider discussing such inexplicable deletions on the talkpage first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The information was moved, mostly to Proto-Slavic language. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The 6 sentences of Proto-Slavic_Language#Dialectal_differentiation are but a fraction of shamelessly deleted 13K of contents. Plus, it's not really appropriate to discuss the things such as jat border there: jat dissoluted after the Proto-Slavic period, in complex ways in various dialects, and the reflexes of jat in various languages/dialects should be discussed in their respective grammar articles (in the section for historical phonology). However, since the jat reflection patterns cross modern state/language boundaries, more synthetic approach in a separate article such as this one should be the bestest route to follow IMHO. Also, the jat grapheme was historically used for centuries after the jat phoneme ceased to existed, representing its reflexes, hence denoting different sounds in different scribal traditions in different times. The alphabetic and phonological aspect of jat are thus intricately interrelated and should IMHO be treated in a single article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, first Лудольф created the article Yat (Slavonic phoneme), which I merged to Proto-Slavic language. In addition to being moved, the information there was reworded so that it was shorter. I don't believe any of that information has been lost though I wasn't paying attention to what Лудольф deleted. Are there any citations we can provide for any of this stuff? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the Croatian (Serbo-Croatian) dialects section I wrote - almost all of that stuff can be found in the Barić et al. reference at the bottom. This stuff is non-controversial, and I don't think excessive referencing is really necessary, esp. when lots of that information can already be found dispersed in various articles on individual languages/dialects. Lots of information was indeed lost, by trying to simplify the big picture, but since the very concept of Proto-Slavic jat and its corresponding historical grapheme is by definition some kind of "expert stuff", there is really little point in trying to be "idiot-proof" in the first place ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yat or jat

Most English-language books I saw actually use the spelling jat and not yat, esp. the more "technical" ones. Should we move it there? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the transliteration standard. Wikipedia uses the one with y (although I don' find it the most efficient).--Ayceman (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but WP should generally follow the commonest not the arbitrary chosen spelling/notation, which in this case methinks might be jat not yat --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a balance we strike between our own transcription (e.g. Romanization of Russian and common spelling. It's easy to go with the latter for politicians that are notable even amongst English speakers, but I'm not so sure about this one. Even if it isn't more popular in the technical books, I'm leaning towards yat — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "yat" as well. Recently Bulgaria standardised its transliteration rules and this is the only variant remaining as of now. So if until now Bulgarian academics would release in English mostly works with the "jat" form, now they'll all switch (or rather have already switched) to the latter. --Laveol ^T 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I have no problems on either form being chosen as the preferred one, but simply wanted to make a remark and hopefully we can all agree on using yat not only in this article, but also elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)