Talk:Ukrainian Latin alphabet
|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Wait, though. This is not a "Latin alphabet," but only a transliteration. Note that each letter of the Ukranian alphabet is thus "transliterated"
This version says: objednannia A more scholarly version is: objednańńa
Additionaly, there are digraphs in this "alphabet" instead of one grapheme - one phoneme Not only that, but palatalization is indicated differently on different letters
l - ł ś - s
Also, since palatalized consonants are marked they should have the diacritics In addition, the same diacritic is used in two instances: é or ě ń or č
This system is flawed by being more like a way to look more European than a good way to write Ukrainian using the Latin alphabet --iopq
I've cleaned up the table and added some omitted letters, based on my best guess. Please check if I got it right. (I'm thinking that possibly some combinations are not meant to come at the beginning of a word, e.g., ie as opposed to Ye/ye.)
It would be more useful as a reference to reconfigure the table so that the traditional Cyrillic is on the left and the equivalent Latynka on the right, listing exceptions and special cases for each letter. The simple alphabet at the top already serves to show the correct letter ordering. —Michael Z. 2005-09-28 23:26 Z
Is this a recent proposal for a Latin alphabet for Ukrainian? I'd like to see this article eventually cover the history and details of any and all proposals or usage of the Latin alphabet for Ukrainian (aside from transliteration, which is covered in Romanization of Ukrainian). —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 04:13 Z
The Ukrainian Latin Alphabet, or Latynka is based on both Polish and Czech, perhaps similar to the Belarussian Łacinka as well. In Czech, the diacritics also work differently with different letters. For example: š - sh and ň - nj. This system is not flawed. It is a system that makes Ukrainian more European, and makes it even easier for travelers. That is why I made it more European in the first place! For example, if Czech visitors come to Ukraine, not knowing how to read Cyrillic, and they look at a sign that says, Київ, what will they do? If they see a sign that says, Kyjiv, it's close enough for them to figure it out for themselves.
This script is not just for transliteration, but maybe even for future use as a second way to write Ukrainian. Why not make a Latin alphabet that is not only used for transliteration, but for people who might accept the idea to use the Latynka? They may decide to write books, webpages, and other things with it.
The reason why the table is the way it is, because it is to show the similarities between the Cyrillic and Latin.
I will try to find additional information about its use during the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The reason why this script is more perfect, than perhaps the others, is because other nonofficial-proposals use ğ for ґ, g for г, and x for x. The Ğ sign is not used in any of the Western Slavic Alphabets, which would confuse people.
The current transliteration is only official for English. If the Latynka becomes official, all Latin-based alphabets wouldn't have to mispell Ukrainian names.
Can someone please delete the Ukrajinśka Łatynka? Or maybe redirect it to Ukrainian Latin Alphabet or Łatynka. I am not able to do so.
If there are anymore questions, I would be happy to answer them.
- Done abakharev 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That's the point, though. A real latin alphabet for ukrainian wouldn't look at the current spelling of the in Cyrillic, because that would be just transliterating Cyrillic. I especially dislike the l - ł change. To a native Ukrainian speaker the DIFFERENT sounding phoneme is the soft l. So when seeing l it's assumed it's pronounced hard until specified otherwise. It doesn't matter that in Polish it might be the other way around and the spelling with the diacritic is preferred. If I were to change it, I'd just make it ĺ for the soft one and l for the hard one.
Also, it would be nice if ukrainian got two new letters for ʣ and ʤ (hope they show up correctly) because pronunciation of two letters dz is sometimes the affricate... and sometimes the two letters! Compare: bdžola and pidžaryty In the first case it's the affricate inside the root of the word and in the second it's the d from the prefix and the ž from the root.
What also confuses me is ý because it's signifying two different sounds with one letter. It's two sounds! yj should be the correct spelling. Also, x should be used and not ch because it's one grapheme! How other languages spell it is irregardless!
As per objednannia vs. objednańńa Tapes showed that there is no "ia" phoneme, that the letter in cyrillic is a combination of ja or SOFTENING the preceding consonant. Lučukivka gives ob’jednanńa and that's probably more correct... I can't tell whether the first n is palatalized or not.
If you're intent on spelling objednannia then you must also spell сьогодні as siohodni when my preferred spelling would be śohodni You either spell it one way or the other OR you say "check the cyrillic spelling" in which case you're just transliterating.
Also, I'm not sure on this point, but it seems that there is a phonetic difference between soft and hard č as in mjač'
In addition, I'm not sure of the point of having a single grapheme for je in Jevropa just so it looks prettier
Jevropa is correct because that's the pronunciation and actually close to the IPA of the word
Also, why isn't it d with acute for the soft version? If you're using acutes for "softness" why not keep using them? Try the acute combining character in unicode. Same for t.
IN FACT I suggest Ď / ď stands for dž the same way that diacritic has been used over z and s Except for the fact that it looks so much like d acute in the small form
Appropriatness of content
It appears that the originator of this version of the Ukrainian Latin alphabet has written this Wikipedia article. Is that correct? Wikipedia an encyclopedia. It would be very appropriate to document historical examples of Latin alphabets for Ukrainian; their history and their technical details. I respect your efforts, but I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to promote your own work. Please see the following guidelines. —Michael Z. 2005-10-1 05:01 Z
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an instruction manual
About the Latynka
The Latynka was something that was used during the Cossack Hetmans, and during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so it is something historical. Forgive me if I tried to promote my ideas. I will limit everything to what is historically correct and useful to this site.
The described "latinized" Ukrainian looks very similar to Euro-Ukrainian. Are they related, and if so what about the claimed authorship?
- I notice that page has "The Euro-Ukrainian alphabet is the creation of Maxim Lagoda." at the bottom. —Michael Z. 2005-11-1 04:16 Z
- Sweet, it makes a lot of sense. Now can you move the discussion to that page O.o since it pertains to the Euro-Ukrainian alphabet instead of this article.
Cyrillic in Wikipedia
Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at
- Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
- Discussing potential revision of current practices
Latest addition of Latynka
The new anonymous contribution lacks context. When was this Latynka used? In what publications? Is this the same Polish/Czech alphabet referred to in the first paragraph of the history section? —Michael Z. 2006-03-12 00:41 Z
Snide comments are not a useful edit summary
I have no idea what the "problem" was, because you didn't leave an edit summary when you "fixed" it. In both Safari and Firefox, the table looked fine before your edit, and looked compressed and much less readable after. So I reverted, with a brief edit summary. If you have a problem with that, please discuss, and don't leave snide comments about my perceived misbehaviour in edit summaries. If you need a reminder on the purpose and use of the edit summary, please see Help:Edit summary.
Your comment was not helpful; I still don't know what the problem was, because in both of my browsers, the table looks identical before and after your improvement. After the fact, I suppose you added the redundant "text-align:center" attributes because your browser has CSS problems, but I'm still guessing, and I had no way of knowing this in advance, did I?
In my opinion, the latest version looks significantly worse in a wide window, since it adds pointless horizontal gaps between the table columns. There also remains a previous problem that all of the rows are evenly spaced, so the corresponding Latin and Cyrillic letters are not clearly associated. —Michael Z. 2007-04-02 18:13 Z