Talk:Yat with diaeresis: Difference between revisions
Theknightwho (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:My Russian is not good enough to easily work out everything in that book. I suppose, like Russian ё, these were sort-of distinct letters that were commonly written without the diaeresis? —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
:My Russian is not good enough to easily work out everything in that book. I suppose, like Russian ё, these were sort-of distinct letters that were commonly written without the diaeresis? —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
::@[[User:Mzajac|Mzajac]] Yes, that's exactly it. I have a feeling there's also ѧ̈, which we don't list in the sidebar, but I suspect it was (is?) only used to show an etymological relationship with pre-1708 spellings. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
::@[[User:Mzajac|Mzajac]] Yes, that's exactly it. I have a feeling there's also ѧ̈, which we don't list in the sidebar, but I suspect it was (is?) only used to show an etymological relationship with pre-1708 spellings. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
No opinion on whether the glyph merits an article of its own, but [https://viewer.rusneb.ru/ru/000202_000006_2121060?page=885 the whole page] from which the illustration is taken confirms that the type used for setting it included both yat-with-acute (as in Звукомѣръ) and yat-with-diaeresis as distinct glyphs. By the way, this is the 1912 edition of the dictionary, and not 1903 as the illustration claims. The 1903 edition [https://viewer.rusneb.ru/ru/000202_000005_1330940?page=663 actually] used yat-with-acute for both purposes. --[[User:Crash48|Crash48]] ([[User talk:Crash48|talk]]) 15:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:27, 26 December 2023
![]() | Writing systems Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Russia Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Distinctiveness from yat with acute
@Mzajac and Suriname0: - I note that you proposed this for redirection along with Yat with acute because "from the image it is clear that the diaeresis was used as a substitute where the grave accent wouldn’t fit over the tall letter when setting metal type, in that one dictionary". I disagree that that is the case: the diaeresis was in fact used analogously with the letter yo, to represent instances where a stressed yat was pronounced as /jo/, as in the nominative/accusative plural of гнѣздо́ (гнѣ̈зда). Following the 1918 reform, this is now гнёзда. Exactly the same thing happened with the (rare) ya with diaeresis, which only existed in about 5 words. For more examples, see wikt:Category:Russian terms spelled with Ѣ̈ and wikt:Category:Russian terms spelled with Я̈, though these are mostly inflected forms.
You can see modern uses of both of these on page 49 of this book from 2012, for instance. Theknightwho (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- My Russian is not good enough to easily work out everything in that book. I suppose, like Russian ё, these were sort-of distinct letters that were commonly written without the diaeresis? —Michael Z. 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac Yes, that's exactly it. I have a feeling there's also ѧ̈, which we don't list in the sidebar, but I suspect it was (is?) only used to show an etymological relationship with pre-1708 spellings. Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
No opinion on whether the glyph merits an article of its own, but the whole page from which the illustration is taken confirms that the type used for setting it included both yat-with-acute (as in Звукомѣръ) and yat-with-diaeresis as distinct glyphs. By the way, this is the 1912 edition of the dictionary, and not 1903 as the illustration claims. The 1903 edition actually used yat-with-acute for both purposes. --Crash48 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)