Talk:Georgian scripts

Direction of writing

Are ზ and ხ really written in the opposite direction, one beginning with the tick atop the bowl, and the other ending with it? — kwami (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ზ is written starting with the top loop (going clockwise) and ending with the bottom loop (counterclockwise). ხ starts with a downward vertical stroke and ends with the bottom loop (going counterclockwise). Aronson's Georgian: A Reading Grammar contains several pages (21-25) illustrating what I understand to be the "correct" way to write all the letters. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We got the first one wrong, then. I don't have access to Aronson. Could you check to see which others we got wrong? I'll correct the image if you can describe them as well as you did ზ. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Aronson book is available online (see "Reference grammar of Georgian by Howard Aronson" in the article's external link section).

The directions in the "Writing order and direction of Mkhedruli" section of the article seem to be mostly correct, but I would say the following:

• The stroke direction for ზ is all wrong, as I already pointed out above.
• Is there any way to use curved arrows? The arrows currently on თ and ფ, for example, do not (IMO) adequately express the idea that the circle should be done first (counterclockwise), followed by the hook or hooks (clockwise).
• I would add another, upward-pointing arrow to the end of პ, to make it clear that the letter is written bottom-to-top. Same for ჰ, and also ა.
• The directional arrows on ჯ don't really make sense, since (as far as I'm aware) the form of ჯ shown in this chart — like an X with hooks on all four ends — is exclusively a printed (typeface) form and is never used in handwriting. The common handwritten ჯ is made by first doing a vertical stroke, with a hook on the bottom (kind of like handwritten კ), and then adding a horizontal stroke (which may slant slightly from upper left to lower right).

Please remember that I'm a student of Georgian (not a native speaker), so I'll gladly stand corrected if Jaqeli or other native speakers would like to correct me. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Richwales: and @Kwamikagami: I should state that none of those letters are written wrong. All of them are correct. I should also say that usage of printed version for ჯ is also handwritten by some though majority of course write it with the hook so we can discuss the possibility of changing of printed ჯ into handwritten ჯ. Also I want to say that I would definitely support the curved arrows as well as Rich suggested. As for პ, ჰ and ა there is no need for additional arrow as those letters are written with 1 move. Jaqeli (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, ზ and ხ are written in opposite directions, ზ bottom-to-top, and ხ top-to-bottom, pace Aronson? — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No. ზ is written middle-to-top-to-bottom, roughly like a slanted figure-8. After the first (left/top) loop, the rest of ზ is written more or less like ხ. Also, the final tail (tick mark) on the end of ხ (and ზ) is an optional flourish, kind of like a serif — it's common in many typefaces, but it's not an absolutely mandatory distinguishing characteristic — some people's handwriting includes the tail on ზ and ხ, while others don't, and AFAIK it's considered OK either way. The essential difference between ხ and ს, as I understand it, is that ხ has a closed loop, whereas the ending of ს is open. My impression of the font used in Aronson's book is that the ს's look way too much like ხ's — Jaqeli, could you let us know what you think of the Georgian font in the Aronson book (available online via the first external link in this article)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I've seen the book and the handwritten words and their direction is indeed right. By the way, all kids at schools at first learn the Georgian alphabet in that kind of barred notebooks as Aronson used for the letters. Rich, you seem to know many things about the Georgian alphabet so well done. Indeed, the tail on ხ and ზ are used by many and those letters are considered written complete when used in that way so yes it is very common and is used by many. What do you mean about the letter ს being too much? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as you said above; you and Jaqeli then disagree as to whether Aronson or our illustration is correct. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What I disagree with Rich exactly? Jaqeli (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aronson says ზ is written top-to-bottom, as ხ is; you say it's written bottom-to-top, the opposite of ხ. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My motivation for suggesting additional arrows was to make these writing issues clearer to readers who may be totally unfamiliar with the Georgian alphabet. If one looks at a letter like პ, with absolutely no prior knowledge of this or any other Georgian letter, one's first assumption is almost certainly going to be that the letter must obviously be written top-to-bottom — the opposite of reality. Regarding ჯ, it wasn't until I saw the common handwritten form of this letter that I realized the most important identifying feature is the hook on the bottom (lower left), and that the other three hooks are basically just an artistic thing (kind of like serifs in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: I think that ჯ the way it is now in the image should stay that way as there is an additional section for those letters who have alternative forms for Mkhedruli just above that section. As for the upward arrows I think the best solution would be the curved arrows which would describe their direction at its best. Jaqeli (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think curved arrows will make them clearer. ა especially might be confusing with a second arrow, but they might be useful with the others. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So we've got:

clockwise: ბ გ დ ე ვ ი კ ლ მ ნ ო რ უ ქ ღ შ ძ წ ჭ ჯ

counter-clockwise: ა პ ს ც ხ ჰ

both: [ckws–cntr] ზ; [cntr–ckws] ჟ ტ თ ფ ყ ჩ

— kwami (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, as I see you're mostly confused with letter ზ? You can first write the same kind of letter like ხ and then just add a circle at the top. It will be more easy for you. By the way many write like that. Jaqeli (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why it's the opposite of ხ, and if Aronson made an error. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not really call it an error. It's just recommended to write ზ like that. Though as I've said many write it as they want. Jaqeli (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I found the font Avaza SP online. It's closer to handwriting than Sylvaen, and so is probably a better font for the image. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, you mean this font? Jaqeli (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's not beautiful, but it's easy to copy with pen and paper, and it leaves out the optional serifs, and thus illustrates the necessary parts of the letters. (Unless that first left-to-right stroke of l is necessary?) — kwami (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree. That font has nothing to do with the original shaped Mkhedruli alphabet. The font which is currently on the image is the perfect font for the Georgian alphabet meaning it represents all the originally-shaped letters for the alphabet. As for the so called serifs for ხ and ზ can be removed if it is that important. Jaqeli (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant to the question. — kwami (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Parent system

to Jaqeli: The parent system of Georgian alphabet is the Greek alphabet. The ordering of letters is such an obvious proof of it, that it is not rejected by anyone, not even Georgian scholars. By the way, the fact that it's modelled on Greek (and not on Armenian, like Caucasian Albanian alphabet) has been the main point for scholars who reject its creation by Mashtots. The concept of "parent system" has nothing to do with what is written in "Origin" section, it does not mean a Greek origin of Georgian script, or that the forms of Greek letters have influenced the form of Georgian letters, it simply means the alphabet as such has been modelled on Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaqeli's behavior is highly disruptive with no apparent desire to discuss. If this continues, I suggest you go to Arbitration Enforcement per Talk:Georgian_alphabet#This_article_subject_to_general_sanctions. There is no reason for him to remove Greek as the parent sustem of the Georgian alphabet. It is backed up by a reliable source, which he prefers to overlook. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I beleive in this case it's only a misunderstanding of the concept of "Parent system". The different versions of origin of Georgian script are not saying anything about the parental system of the alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Further changes by Jaqeli, without any discussion. By parent system, Jaqeli, one means the alphabet on which the current one is modelled. For the case of Georgian alphabet it was modelled on Greek. This fact is neither rejected by anyone, nor is it disputed. The origin of Georgian alphabet, its creation, history, modifications, etc. may be unclear, but the fact that the alphabet, as we know it today, was modelled on Greek is not something disputable. It has nothing to do with the form of the letters, etc., it is just that the Greek alphabet was used as a basis for Georgian alphabet. I hope know you understood. Хаченци (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The category seems ambiguous to me. Usually by "parent system" we mean direct descent. "Modeled on" works for me. But the sorting order is not "modeled on" Greek, it *is* Greek. Whether that and the few obvious Greek letters in Georgian mean that the Georgian script is actually derived from Greek I don't think anyone knows. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never claim Georgian alphabet is derived directly from Greek alphabet, the two scripts are simply too different from each other. It is though a descedant from Greek (in the sense it was modelled on Greek) whereas the intermediate steps remain unclear. While creating a new alphabet, you need a basis, don't you? For Georgian alphabet it was Greek, wasn't it? That's what I am trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong. Writing "The parent system of Georgian alphabet was Greek alphabet" absolutely does not mean that Georgian script is a sort of evolution of the Greek alphabet. Хаченци (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Хаченци, stop inserting the disputed wording in the "parent system". It is not important if you would never claim anything about the Georgian alphabet but it is important for the average reader of the encyclopedia to understand what does that mean. It is highly confusing and such wording like "modeled on Greek" can not stay in that bar. Exact wording which is "alphabetic order modeled on Greek" is clear and such statement better explains its role when "modeled on Greek" can mean anything from copying the Greek letters to the origins of the alphabet itself. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been going on for so long that I don't know what the status quo is. But we have a ref for it being modeled on Greek; if it were descended directly from Greek we wouldn't need a clarification such as "modeled on". — kwami (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To Jaqeli, Why should it matter what an average reader would understand, if the written text is from reliable sources? The details are described in the article itself. The Armenian alphabet is even more far from Greek, but I can hardly imagine any Armenian feeling somehow offended because of the fact that Greek alphabet is a parent system of AA. You need to compare with other articles on scripts, the world is not moving around Georgian alphabet only. Хаченци (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

comparison with Armenian

Graphic similarities between Armenian and Georgian, with apparently OR implications about their historical relationship.

What's the point of the img comparing Georgian w Armenian? Is it just to show a common calligraphic tradition, as you get between the Latin and Thai alphabets, or is there an implicit claim of a common origin? Today, Georgian and Armenian often look like the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't mean they derive from Latin, or even that Latin influenced their creation. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cmon, that's already not serious. Similarity between early Georgian and Armenian scripts can hardly be compared with similarity of both with Latin. Possible influence of Armenian alphabet on Georgian is written in sources, and the similarities of letters is one of main points why people think about common origin. It's not only graphical similarity, but some of the same letters, i.e. the letters corresponding to the same (or almost the same, due to differences of the languages) sound, look extremely similar in both alphabets (e.g. k (Կ), i (Ի), p' (Փ, from Greek), v (Վ), ts' (Ց), zh' (Ժ) ) . However, I have to agree, that the shown picture does not show that similarity. And such a picture is probably better to include in a detailed article about the origin of Georgian script. Хаченци (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User Hablavar is making highly disputed edits in the origins section and attention should be taken with all such edits for avoiding disruption on Wikipedia article. As for this picture this shows only the calligraphic similarities and not of the letters. And it is Nukshuri alphabet which first appeared in the 9th century so what does that image have to do with the origins section as it has nothing to do with the origins of the first Asomtavruli alphabet. Jaqeli (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To: Jaqely - Why are they highly "disputed edits" and where you see "disruption?" Highly disruptive is your avoidance to comment on the substance. Hablabar (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are engaged in highly disruptive editing. You seem to not understand that the origin's section is not a play ground for edits here. Admins will most likely monitor all your edits for avoiding such behavior. As for the content please bother yourself and see my comment above. Jaqeli (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything "disruptive" or "controversial" in Hablabar's edits. Additionally, we need something a picture? or table? comparing graphics of Armenian and Georgian alphabets and showing their graphical unity, which is pretty self evident per Хаченци. Zimmarod (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Zimarod, please read above. My comment is addressed to you as well. Jaqeli (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Jaqeli continues displaying an attitude toward the edits and advice of Zimmarod (talk · contribs), Hablabar (talk · contribs), Roses&guns (talk · contribs), Хаченци (talk · contribs), and Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) that is inimical to the constructive editing of the article. I had to file an AE request. Hablabar (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd advice you to see WP:EW to be more aware what it really means. Jaqeli (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My question still stands: What is the purpose of the comparison? As Jaqeli and Хаченци pointed out, it does not support a common origin, but that's what a naive reader might take away from it being in the Origin section. But it looks like the img has been removed, so the point is moot. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed by Kwamikagami's drive-by rv. Changes in the section were extensively discussed for several months. Hablabar (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article's been stable, and now you're resurrecting an edit war. This comparison chart is, well, idiotic. How about I put a comparison of Georgian and Thai in the origin section? I'm sure I could make just as convincing a case. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not resurrecting an edit war just confirming and further developing the work of 3 other editors who worked on this passage: User:Zimmarod, User:Хаченци, and User:Roses&guns. "How about I put a comparison of Georgian and Thai in the origin section? I'm sure I could make just as convincing a case" you said above. No, Kwamikagami, you would not be able to "make just as convincing a case" because any such similarity would be accidental. In case of Armenian and Georgian alphabets you can argue that would not be accidental since because of a strong historical connection between these alphabets. Plus, I added 7(!) new immeadetely verifiable references that that you so gratuitously deleted. Also, you, Kwamikagami, I can't spot you ever contributed anything of substance to the discussion on the alphabets, only brief dismissive remarks and, now, obscenities. Hablabar (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You can always cherry-pick sources to support a POV, so that means nothing. The img is unsourced and so can be gratuitously deleted at any time. Now, if you had a source comparing these letters, explaining that the similarities are due to (a) Georgian deriving from Armenian, (b) a common author randomly recycling letter forms in a second alphabet, (c) a common a calligraphic tradition in Armenian and Georgian causing the letter forms to converge, or (d) some other reason, then I would support inclusion. But placing a chart showing similarities in the origin section suggests that the similarities with Armenian are due to a common origin with Armenian. AFAICT, that POV is not accepted by philological sources, so we have no business making it. For all we know, the similarities are simply due to the Greek calligraphic tradition of the Christian communities of the area, and so say nothing about any connection between Georgian and Armenian except that they arose in the same cultural environment.

Dismissive remarks are appropriate for such edits, and I haven't used any obscenities. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added sources that support a particular academic viewpoint on the subject according to WP:BALANCE. This is very different from cherry-picking which tries to suppress other viewpoints. You are free to add sources that would support alternative points of view, which have already been well represented in the very same paragraph. You have called the edits idiotic, and that is an obscenity, and your gratuitous deletionism is unacceptable. You are no better than anyone else editing this article and the rules are for everyone. Hablabar (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so "obscenity" means anything you don't like. You are also using obscenities like "gratuitous" and "no better". I request that you stop using obscenities of WP by saing anything I don't like, and by always agreeing with what I say.

How about this for a comparison, proving that Armenian derives from earlier alphabets. Should I make a chart of this for the origin section of the Armenian article?

Ա U, Բ F, գ q, դ η, ե t, զ q, է t, թ p, ժ d, ի h, Լ L, Ծ Θ, ծ δ, Կ Ч, հ h, Ձ Q, ղ η, Մ U, Յ З, Շ C, ո n, Պ ϡ, Ջ Q, ռ n, ս u, Տ S, Ր Γ, ց g, Փ Ф, Ք R, Օ O

This "proves" the origin of Armenian much better than your chart "proves" the origin of Georgian. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

all this "proves" is that a couple of Armenian characters (not the extensive line that you have compiled) resemble Greek and Latin letters, which is indisputable because the alphabet's inventor M. Mashtots did apparently use Greek and Latin letters. Hablabar (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't even prove that! I could find similar resemblances with Thai, Ethiopian, or Hindi, especially with calligraphic styles that have been influenced by European conventions. I suspect that a common calligraphic tradition in Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, Armenian, and Georgian is important, but we need sources for any claims or even implications that we're making. Z's chart of random similarities is unsupported OR and so has no place in WP. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And please go ahead and make a "chart of this for the origin section of the Armenian article" if you can find a series of primary and secondary references that the Armenian alphabet was created by a Greek and Roman inventor. In case of Georgian alph. the argument is much stronger because of a straightforward and direct historical record, not supposed, believed or imagined reference, such as in the case of your line of letters above. Hablabar (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time with WP:POINTy OR, and neither should you. You rightfully would want RS's for it, so why not require RS's for your own edits? — kwami (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the moron that should've been topic banned. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Kwamikagami deleted absolutely everything, not only the chart he does not like, including the many references from credible academic sources. I believe the argument on cherrypicking is plainly false, period, and I added even more references about Mashtots but without compromising the counterargument-slash-doubt that he might not have been the one inventing it. Zimmarod (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I won't comment on any of the content questions, other than to say that the image is badly in violation WP:OR - and as a scholar of writing systems, many of the relationships it suggests are shallow and amateurish, and should never be included in Wikipedia in any form - Kwami is correct on procedure: you added content that was reverted, so you need to get consensus in discussion before adding it back. In edit conflicts, the pre-existing state of the article is the default, and all changes from that base state need to attain consensus. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is in line with earlier edits of User:Hablabar, User:Хаченци, User:Roses&guns, and User:Divot. Zimmarod (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of edit-warring, bad sources, and outright silliness in this article, you should state here what you want to change and why. I will revert everything, not because I disagree with it, but because you should gain consensus for contested edits. If you're not willing to do that, you shouldn't be editing the article. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This concerns everyone. Drive-by reverts by come close to vandalism and will not be tolerated. Discuss details of what you disagree with. Please note that you are not exempt from gaining consensus either. The reference to you refer to as "stable" is a manipulation by a banned user Jaqeli, and restoring his inadmissible edits - especially without substantiation - is highly controversial. Hablabar (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And I dont see any "outright silliness" in my edits. Please stop insulting editors. Hablabar (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop beating your wife.

The chart is outright silly, as explained above. It also violates fundamental WP policy. You want to make changes, so you need to justify them. Simply labeling the existing text as a "manipulation" or "inadmissable" means nothing: You need actual reasons. — kwami (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here are my objections, which I expect to be addressed rationally before changing the article:

• The chart: Unless we have a good ref to support the unlikely proposition that Armenian m and n are related to Georgian p and h, the chart has no business being anywhere on WP and should be deleted from Commons. Хаченци and maybe Hablabar seem to agree w me here. If we have a RS for specific similarities, that would be nice to include, but this chart is just OR. [A few of the letters, but only a few, resemble Greek, but that could simply be a common inheritance. A few, but again only a few, seem to connect Georgian and Armenian, but we'd need a very good source to claim that this indicates a common origin rather than just coincidence or common calligraphic styles.]

• The img of Mashtots: This seems undue WEIGHT, given that there is no scholarly consensus that he had anything to do with Georgian. It feels like a nationalist claim on regional history, or as our sources put it, inter-church historical revisionism, and therefore IMO inappropriate.

• Date: The current version has been twisted to make it seem as early as possible, but the proposed wording does not reflect the full range of the sources. One ref says early 5th c., the other says 2nd half of the 4th to the early 5th. They both say it was contemporaneous with the invention of the Armenian alphabet, which we should mention too if we're to be true to our sources. Those are just two sources, however, and their authors are not experts in the field, so we really should find better sources.

• The text third paragraph differs in style rather than substance. There's something to be said for both versions, but I assume there's nothing contentious here. However, 11 refs for the Armenian tradition is overkill and disruptive to the article. I haven't reviewed the refs, but some have been criticized as not being RS's.

So I oppose either img. I support more NPOV wording for the date. I'd prefer better sources for the dates, but if the ones we end up using say Georgian was contemporaneous w Armenian, we should too. However, other than maybe some minor copy-editing, I fail to see anything else of value in the proposed version.

For the date, assuming new refs don't change anything, maybe "The scholarly consensus points to the Georgian alphabet being created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet." Is there anything I said here that's unreasonable? — kwami (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The chart is controversial but it is ridiculous to think the similarities are accidental.

• Image of Mashtots. Everything depends on the notation accompanied the image. Mashtots is the only probable historically-confirmed originator of the Georgian alphabet with so many references. It can be undue WEIGHT if we say affirmatively that Mashtots is the inventor, period. But if we show that he is just a probable figure in the invention process, then it is due weight. Not giving Mashtots due prominence as a probable factor is undue WEIGHT. Most references regarding the origins of the alphabet point to Mashtots, regardless of how strongly they affirm it.

• Date. The scholarly consensus points unequivocally to the 5th century. Other opinions are fringe opinions and should be treated according to WP:FRINGE.

• kwami:{{A source is only considered a RS for the topic its author is expert in, so we should restrict ourselves to philological and paleographic sources, rather than sources on religion or history, for actual claims of a historical connection between the scripts, though of course religious history sources are fine for attesting the competing claims of the rival churches.}} Here it seems kwami is making his own rules instead of following WP rules. Well ... we may do that but then we will need to purge the text of all other references that dont comply with this unreasonably strict requirement. All references that doubt Mashtots and are authored by historians would need to be purged as well then. i.e. W. Seibt, The Creation of the Caucasian Alphabets. In addition all un-translated foreign language sources such as this Georgian source - ივ. ჯავახიშვილი, ქართული პალეოგრაფია, გვ. 205-208, 240-245 - need to be purged; if not - one can easily quote 40 references from Armenian-language sources confirming Mashtots, something I don't think is a good idea. Hablabar (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You need sources to change the article, not just talk. Your claim about the chart is your opinion only; w/o sources, it would be OR to include it, as others have pointed out. To claim Mashtots is the "probably" inventor is also not supported. Date: You're contradicting your own sources, but you don't want to improve them, which is ridiculous. We do need to follow the sources we use. Policy: Perhaps you should read up on WP:RS, you don't seem to be familiar with it. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you good luck editing WP with an attitude like that. Hablabar (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you good luck editing WP if you don't have an attitude like that. Purposefully misrepresenting sources will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

????? Purposefully misrepresenting sources? You cannot drive by throwing up accusations like that. What do you mean? Hablabar (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're using a ref that says it may date from the 2nd half of the 4th century, yet you were edit-warring to make us say that it dates from the early 5th century. That was the whole point of my "date" objection; I assumed that you read it, since you gave a counter-argument. Me, I have no idea when it was invented, because I wasn't there. But either the source is wrong, in which case we should get better sources (another point I made, which you objected to), or the source is correct, in which case we need to reflect it in our text (which you also object to). We can't say "A" and support it with a source that says "B": They need to be either both A or both B. I'm not arguing that it's either A or B, but later in that very same paragraph we state that we can constrain the date to ca. 330–430. Again, we can't say A in the first sentence of the paragraph and B in the 2nd-last. My proposed wording for the first sentence is consistent both with the sources that we use for it, and with the claim of that later sentence. If your dating is correct, then we need to change much more than what you did. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, given that the sources we use in that paragraph say that the Georgian alphabet was created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet, do you have any objection to saying "The scholarly consensus points to the Georgian alphabet being created sometime in the late 4th to early 5th century, contemporaneous with the Armenian alphabet"? — kwami (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Stephen H. Rapp Jr in his article that is brought as reference does two things: 1) dismisses the Georgian medieval claim that the alphabet was created by King Parnavaz 2) says it as plausible that Georgian and Armenian alphabets were created as the same time, either in the late 4th century or early 5th century. That is what he says. However, it has never been questioned really that the Armenian alphabet was invented earlier or later than 405 or 406; and good as Stephen H. Rapp Jr might be as reference, there is NO CONSENSUS that Georgian alphabet might have been invented earlier than the 5th century. Most opinions in academia congregate around early 5th century. And that is what the article should claim - most RSs date the Georgian alphabet for the 5th century AD. Hope that is clear. Hablabar (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't use a source saying it was created in the 4th c. as a ref to claim it was created in the 5th c. — kwami (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So, as the user who drafted last September the current version of the disputed paragraph (Jaqeli only inserted it in the article after the discussion had died out) (and let me apologize for abandoning the discussion, as real life obligations make it hard for me to devote time to wikipedia on an extended period), let me voice my support of Kwamikagami's position.

My main effort, in the discussion last summer, was to trim the absurdly high number of doubtful sources being used by both sides of the dispute in a battleground-y way, and come to an NPOV version through sources that we could deem reliable, based not on what they say but where they come from (peer-review, reliable publisher, source by a specialist of history/philology of Caucasian languages and societies, etc.). This discussion about sources, and the version it led to, though not perfect, were in my opinion more constructive than this topic usually invites.

Anyway, what I see now is an effort by some users to twist what some of the reliable sources say to fit their thesis (i.e. the whole discussion above about Rapp), and to add yet another flood (or bombardment) of mostly poor-quality sources cherry-picked for their support of Mashtots. The image of Mashtots adds undue weight to his hypothesis. The alphabet comparison chart is OR, tendentious, and many more good arguments have been made against it by various editors in the discussion above.

As for the change from "quoted in some Western sources" to "supported by many authors in Western sources", I think it goes too far, and "many" always invites non-productive debate; of the 3 sources cited here, Rayfield quotes, Russell supports and Campbell goes for the 'collaborative with significant Mashtots input' version: no "support by many" here — I'm open to a change to "quoted and supported by some" or some similar formula, but it would have to find consensus on this talk page. I'll try to stick around a bit more this time to help, but cannot promise it absolutely. Susuman77 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea that Mashtots was the inventor is indeed "quoted and supported by some," as suggested by Susuman77, and I also agree that it should be changed to that or similar formula. Hablabar (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Although "quoted and supported by some" does weaken the point that is made, I would go for that version at the very least. Roses&guns (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph separator

Please delete the line

"Georgian symbol (჻) was used as the paragraph separator and punctuation."

from the Punctuation section. This is based on the Unicode name for the glyph, but Unicode is not a RS for anything but Unicode, and in this case they are (once again) wrong.

Signature of king Alexander II of Kakheti, with the divider ⟨჻⟩

Please add the image at right.

Please change

"one (.), two (:), three (:.) and six (:.:.) [[Full stop|dots]]"

to

"one (·), two (:), three (჻) and six (჻჻) dots."

for proper punctuation & to rm overlinking.

— kwami (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georgian scripts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has some problems: large parts (mainly in the second half) lack citations, (and that's enough to keep it from passing GA in itself), and the script display is problematic - which could be helped by making image files for the script, leaving the Unicode versions to the unicode tables.

The content itself is good, and occasionally excellent, particularly in early sections - I appreciate articles that can handle ambiguity and conflicting claims well, and this article definitely does that.

If the citations can be fixed, this will easily pass GA, and be well on its way to FA. If it can't be fixed in the short term, I'm happy to come back and re-review when it can be; just leave a note on my talk page in that case.

In any case, I'll give a couple days for things to be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Adam, thanks for starting the review. Can you please tell me exactly which sections need more references or on which sections should I work on to make it suitable for that criteria? Jaqeli (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure:

The "Nuskhuri" section (including all subsections) only has one citation in its first paragraph, we need a source for the information, and I'd say at least one citation per paragraph (can be the same citation, of course, just use ref name=)

The "Mkhedruli" section, and all subsections, lack citations.

"Ligatures, abbreviations and calligraphy" needs citations for the descriptions of the last couple scripts.

"Punctuation" is uncited.

"Unicode" is uncited.

"Keyboard layout" is uncited. It needs a cite for "Most keyboards in Georgia are fitted with both Latin and Georgian letters." and probably for the keyboard layout itself, though that could go on the image description page. The image actually appears to be wrong, by the way; according to [1], there are several additional letters and symbols available with the alt-Gr key, as well as two alternate layouts.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Any reliable sources will do; in English or Georgian (Or other languages, but those are most likely.) The sources need only be appropriate for the information -

Thanks. I'll make sure everything there to have their own reference. If such won't be found I'll remove it from content for sure. How long time do I have to correct those? 2-4 days would do it. Jaqeli (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've updated it as much as it was possible. Can you please check it? Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot better, but a couple bits still need cites: Obsolete letters, Additional letters, "Mkhedruli has the most developed calligraphy in comparison with Asomtavruli or Nuskhuri.", first two paragraphs of "Punctuation", the "Unicode" section, and the Georgian keyboard needs fixed still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation's Georgian source covers the first part as well. It is just devided with the image in this case. I'll need some time for the obsolete and additional letters but even though if I found none I don't think it is that big deal I mean it just says how they sound and some corrections can be made or some info without source can be removed. Though their sounds are well known. As for Mkhedruli's complex calligraphy if no source is found that sentence can be changed into just as an example for the Mkhedruli calligraphy. Jaqeli (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some updates. How is it now? Jaqeli (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot better, but the Keyboard section is still problematic: it leaves out the Alt-Gr key combinations. I think that needs fixed before it can be promoted. A few places that need citation made explicit, I'll mark those, but it's mostly well-sourced now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On keyboard I found nothing but does it need any source? I mean that's are just undisputed facts that Georgian has 33 letters without capital letters and logically it would need to use the shift key for other letters to type so I think that's not a big problem as the statement does not state anything extraordinary. Don't you agree? Jaqeli (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the problem. IOn many keyboards - not American ones, but certainly the Icelandic one I use (long story), the Alt-Gr key (the right Alt) is used in combination with certain keys to provide extra symbols. For example, if I press the key left of the Z, I get "<". Shift+that = ">". Alt-Gr+that = "|". Completely different symbol.

Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/goglobal/bb964651.aspx choose the Georgian Qwerty keyboard, and click Alt-Gr. You'll see numerous additional symbols that can be got that way, and these are different to the ones gotten by shift. . None appear on the graphic, meaning the graphic is misleading. WP:Graphics lab can probably help.

In addition, Georgian QWERTY is only one of the possible layouts. There is also a Georgian and Georgian (Ergonomic) on that site. I don't know which is most common; but then, there's no source saying QWERTY is, so I'd say that, at the least, the default Georgian should appear as well. File:KB_Portuguese.svg will give you an idea of the standard way this is presented. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What if we just remove that pic from the article and just link that into the "See also"? I have no understanding of keyboard things in details so I can not do anything about it. I will remove it and link it to its article. Is it better now? Jaqeli (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The link you've just posted above can be used as a source that it is indeed a QWERTY keyboard so I will insert back the image there. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're quite understanding my point... Never mind, I'll sort this out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See the layout section. I think I'm gonna fix everything very soon. Jaqeli (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Now? Jaqeli (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been hoping this would get done. I'm adding a couple tags. It may well be that they're covered by the next reference, but standard practice in that case is to put the same citation at the end of both paragraphs, so every paragraph ends in a citation. It's because people move text around. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Those are covered in that source. I've already done the keyboard. Any corrections towards that keyboard? It's better than just an image. Jaqeli (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the keyboard's right. I'll go over it again and double-check. In any case, once all the tags are resolved, I'm happy to promote Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede needs work:

• it's probably too short
• begins with describing the Georgian script (in bold) -- yet the article's called 'Georgian alphabet'
• we're given the etymology of the Georgian word 'alphabet' -- but what's the relevance? does the word mean any alphabet? the Georgian alphabet? which one?
• '... the names of the first two letters of the three Georgian alphabets, which, although they look very different from one another, share the same alphabetical order and letter names' -- 'which' to refer to the alphabets, but could easily be thought to mean the letters the way it's been worded; split into two sentences or rephrase
• 'The alphabets can be seen mixed in some context ...' -- 2nd mention to some unspecified Georgian alphabets -- what are these alphabets?

— Lfdder (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I actually welcome to comment here? I've no idea. — Lfdder (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Of course you are. And good points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: What about now? Jaqeli (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Review tomorrow, saw this right before I sleep. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I received on my talk page a message that the nomination for a good article has failed. Is it true? Jaqeli (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The nomination still appears on WP:GAN, so it isn't true. I think the message you received was a side-effect of the article being moved from "Georgian alphabet" to "Georgian scripts" before this GA1 page was moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Really sorry, absolutely exhausted because of rehearsals the last two days combined with my dodgy sleep schedule. Should be able to tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Methinks this will do. Let's promote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Georgian alphabet → Georgian scripts – The original name in Georgian is "ქართული დამწერლობა" i.e. "Georgian script". Also it is not only the Georgian language that the script is used to write for but it is used for other Kartvelian languages as well. Also it was used for Abkhaz and Ossetian in the past and for other languages in the North Caucasus so the correct form what is the Georgian script it should be definitely renamed back to it so I suggest we move it. Relisted Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Jaqeli (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the comments below, what do you think about changing the proposal to "scripts", plural? — kwami (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I still support the singular form, at least for now. Jaqeli (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? — Lfdder (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It will confuse the readers. Jaqeli (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - per "Latin script" and "Cyrillic script". Script refers to the writing system whereas Alphabet refers to the letters used within that writing system. Also languages other than the Georgian language use the Georgian Script, therefore they'll have different alphabets whilst using the same script. IJA (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's more than one 'script' in the article, and they've all at one time been the Georgian alphabet. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but the Georgian alphabet (Mkhedruli) has only come to be used by other Kartvelian langs only quite recently. Also, I don't think your definition of alphabet reflects general and/or academic usage. — Lfdder (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose — Georgian uses a true alphabet (with distinct characters representing all consonants and vowels), and it is appropriate to use this specific term rather than the more generic "script". To me as a native speaker of English, "script" is a general term referring to any sort of writing system, and especially to non-alphabetic writing systems. With respect, I disagree with the terms "Latin script" or "Cyrillic script"; native speakers of English will normally use "alphabet" in these cases, and despite what the "Latin alphabet" and "Latin script" articles currently say, I believe "Latin alphabet" is in fact the most common term for describing modern writing systems based on the letters of Latin. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's besides the point. The Latin script includes multiple alphabets, including the English alphabet. Cyrillic is likewise not a particular alphabet. We've agreed on the word "script" for such things. Read this article, and you'll see that the Georgian, Mingrelian, Laz and Svan alphabets (plural) all use the same Mkhedruli script. The problem as I see it is that the article is not restricted to the Mkhedruli script, just as it is not restricted to the Georgian alphabet. — kwami (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Welsh Language uses the Latin Script, but the Welsh Alphabet doesn't contain the letters/ characters J, K, Q, X or Z which are used in other languages which use the Latin Script. The German alphabet uses the Latin Script, however the German Alphabet contains the umlaut (ß), which is auxiliary to the Latin Script. IJA (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this in reply to kwami? What are you trying to say? — Lfdder (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my objection. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems#Article naming convention, there appears to be a consensus for using the term "script" in the way that is being proposed here. I'm not sure I agree with this, but any rehash of that issue should take place amongst the WikiProject participants, not here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

a) WikiProjects don't call the shots; they can put out suggestions, but we're under no obligation to follow them b) is the Georgian 'script' not a collection of scripts? are these called scripts in the lit., or are they referred to as forms of the same script? how would this be addressed in the article? c) the script's (scripts) only been used to write Georgian for much of its history. I mean, it's sometimes a useful distinction to make btn the Georgian script and the alphabet, but does it warrant splitting the article? — Lfdder (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per writing systems naming convention. The article "Georgian alphabet" should contain the content fork containing the use of the Georgian script for writing the Georgian language, while Georgian script is about the overarching script, regardless of the particular language it happens to be representing. VanIsaac_WS^cont 20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general idea, but isn't this article almost entirely about the Georgian alphabet specifically? There is only the briefest mention of other alphabets based on the Georgian script, not much more that we might expect for an article on the Georgian alphabet itself. And then there's the question of what exactly we mean by "script": Wouldn't the Georgian script (singular) be Mkhedruli? We spend quite a bit of the article on the other Georgian scripts. If we're going to move, wouldn't the plural be more appropriate? — kwami (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's a bit of a philosophical question. Are Asomtavruli, Nushkuri, and Mkhedruli analogous to majescules, miniscules, and italics in Latin, or are they better thought of like manyōgana, katakana, and hiragana. In other words, do they constitute distinct scripts, or are they best seen as just the three forms of an overarching concept of the Georgian script? I don't know the answer to that question one way or the other, but I think that's the parameters of the issue. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of them have separate Unicode ranges, not that Unicode is a RS. I think they're more like Etruscan and Latin. Perhaps if Latin caps had been largely abandoned, but retained for peripheral uses the way roman numerals have been, so they were seen as a distinct script from medieval miniscules, then we'd have a better parallel to Georgian. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that the division of blocks is purely historical accident. In fact, Unicode classifies them all as script=Georgian. ISO 15924, used for library classification of texts, does, however, distinguish between mkhedruli and the other two. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed name is factually incorrect, per the comments below. The existing name is conventional, and nearly the entire article is about the Georgian alphabet stricto sensu anyway. I would support a move to the plural "scripts", esp. if we split off the Georgian alphabet, but even if we don't. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per kwami's and my own comments here. — Lfdder (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So you both support its plural form? Jaqeli (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I support keeping the article here + a new 'Georgian scripts' heading. — Lfdder (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what you mean in keeping the article here. What do you mean? Jaqeli (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

At "Georgian alphabet" — Lfdder (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you support moving it to "Georgian scripts"? Jaqeli (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: @Lfdder: I changed my mind. Better to move it to the plural form. So I've updated and changed the requested move to its plural form. Please state again your position on the issue. Jaqeli (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, though the new name would imply a different emphasis than what we currently have. If the article is to be about the Georgian scripts in the abstract, then I think the Mkhedruli stuff should be less about Georgian in particular, with more emphasis placed on other languages written in it. Okay, a couple are hardly written at all, and Georgian would still be first among equals, but we should discuss literacy and literature in Mingrelian and Laz, and maybe others. The Georgian alphabet itself might be split off, or maybe moved to the language article the way the Mingrelian alphabet is. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should expand if good sources are found. Svan, Mingrelian and Laz are much needed to be written at least some part of it describing the current situation written by Mkhedruli. Jaqeli (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Is it a single script? Maybe we should use the plural? — kwami (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In Georgian it is known just as "script" though it recognizes and includes 3 scripts into 1. It is called as "დამწერლობა" not "დამწერლობები" (plural). Jaqeli (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But Georgian usage isn't relevant to English. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1 Georgian script includes 3 Georgian scripts. That's how it is. Jaqeli (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to argue this, you need to show that's how it is *in English*. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you see as a problem in its singular form? Jaqeli (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's wrong: It's not a script. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is it? Jaqeli (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What we said: It's three. There is no single Georgian script. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems, inviting people interested in the general subject of writing systems to come here and comment. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Kwamikagami that “Georgian scripts“ would be a better title, or perhaps “Georgian alphabets” or “Georgian writing” (although this might be confused with Georgian literature). I certainly agree with the proposer that the present name is unsatisfactory, as the article covers three distinct scripts, and at least alludes to the existence of more than one mkhedruli alphabet. That said, I don’t have a strong objection to “Georgian script”, which would at least be an improvement, and seems to line up with the Latin and Cyrillic articles (the latter seems to me particularly worth emulating) in comprising a range of regional & historical varieties.—Odysseus1479 08:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: What about Georgian writing system? like Japanese writing system? But that would be too long title for Georgian I think. Jaqeli (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I considered mentioning it, but thought it a little too technical or formal—and longish, as you say: I guess my third suggestion was a shortened version of it.—Odysseus1479 07:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please state your support or oppose in the above section maybe? Jaqeli (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The lede needs a rewrite. — Lfdder (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

fi

We list ჶ (fi) in the additional-letter section, presumably for Laz, but then in the Unicode table shade it as obsolete. Which is it? Another letter that's obsolete in Georgian is used in other languages, but it's still in the obsolete section. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It never was used in Georgian. It was used in Ossetian or Abkhaz in the past and now in Laz as far as I know. But "fi" is definitely an additional letter and not the obsolete one for Georgian. Jaqeli (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

What is "formally unicameral" supposed to mean? Also, what goes in the lead should be covered in the body. — Lfdder (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Was mixed supposed to imply that another script's used for uppercase? — Lfdder (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It means there are no "A a", "B b" etc. No little a's and b's or bigger A's or B's. Mixing refers to decoration purposes only, though the Georgian church uses 3 of them together, but mostly the first two scripts. Jaqeli (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what unicameral means, I meant 'formally'. — Lfdder (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly decor and church. Georgian language does not recognize small and big letters though we can mix letters together if we want to. That's why it's written formally. Jaqeli (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

But what does mixing scripts have to do with it? Is one script thought to be in capitals and the other lowercase? — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is no uppercase and lowercase. There is and was only the size of the letter for decoration effect. Jaqeli (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Example for you:

ოვლი (tovli) meaning snow. თ (t) just has the bigger size for decoration purposes. Jaqeli (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Right then. — Lfdder (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: "historically related scripts" is confusing. And adding the "Khutsuri" name is not needed up there. Its alternative names are in their own sections. Jaqeli (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You said it's confusing before, but how? It seems clear enough to me, at least for the lead.

I added Khutsuri to the text of the lead because it's listed in the info box in the lead. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be confusing for a reader. It should state clearly whose scripts are those three. As for Khutsuri, not needed at all in the lead. Their alternative names are in their own sections, and also Khutsuri is not a name of one script but the combination of Asomtavruli+Nuskhuri=Khutsuri. Jaqeli (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We just said they're Georgian? How could the reader possibly be confused?

Also, we do not repeat descriptive titles in bold in the lead. Some editors twist the text to fit in the title, thinking they're supposed to, but it's bad style.

We give that definition of Khutsuri at Georgian alphabet, but not here. That should be clarified. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. I'd always thought that the scripts derived from each other. Since they don't, I agree with you about the wording. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If Asomtavruli and Nuskhuli had different origins, where did Mkhedruli come from? Was it a cursive derivation of one of the others? — kwami (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is the scripts do at some level 'derive from each other' (they have the same letter names/sounds values and order and so on), though the shapes of the letters themselves may have different origins. (Here's Hewitt saying the scripts 'developed' or 'evolved' from one another.) At any rate, they are 'historically related scripts'. But that doesn't say much. — Lfdder (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why have Machavariani and Pataridze been who tagged? — Lfdder (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I should have just deleted their names. — kwami (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text

Removed the following as obvious nonsense:

Nuskhuri letters may have derived from the northern Arsacid variant of the Pahlavi script, which itself derived from Aramaic, although the direction of writing, the use of separate letters for vowel sounds, the numerical values assigned to the letters, and the order of the letters all point to significant Greek influence. However, the Georgian linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon the Aramaic alphabet.

Maybe they meant Georgian, but Nuskhuri is transparently derived from Asomtavruli. The relationship is as close as classical Latin and medieval miniscules. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You are seriously damaging the content right now. All of the material I've been working on several months are perfectly sourced and you're just removing the important details, citations and sources. I suggest you stop doing that and stop messing the content around. Jaqeli (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It fails the bullshit test. Obvious bullshit has no place in an encyclopedia, unless it's a notable POV and we present it as bullshit. BTW, I've greatly improved several passages that were barely intelligible. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What is bullshit? You are removing the dates, and important details sourced in the sections of each script. You've destroyed the body and content and its important sections of Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri. Everything is perfectly sourced and you're tagging anyways. Stop what you're doing as you're doing no good for the article right now. Jaqeli (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's BS to say Nuskhuri does not come from Asomtavruli, when it obviously does. There are also plenty of sources which state the obvious.

If I removed something important, it was because I couldn't understand it. Can you give examples?

The article is in horrible shape, and does not deserve to be listed as GA. I'm trying to bring it up to GA standards. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Please just stop and don't make it in a rush. What exactly are you concerned about? And in which section you see a problem? Jaqeli (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking it in a rush. I've been making incremental improvements for months, I just haven't visited for a while. As for which sections I see a problem in, to varying degrees pretty much everything I haven't rewritten. I'm not trying to drastically change the article, just to reword it to be comprehensible, and remove contradictions and empty verbiage. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I will source the development phases of Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. They are connected and they were developed out from each other and I will source it. Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli content is perfectly sourced and I cannot see there any horrible shape honestly. You did great work on the summary section. As for additional and obsolete letters please if you will change those sections bring sources for those letters you'll add where and how they are used. Jaqeli (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You criticized me for saying the scripts were developed from each other, but now you're saying the same thing. If it's "perfectly sourced" that they were *not* developed from each other, why would you now say they were? — kwami (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: When did I say that? Jaqeli (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is about! I removed the claim that Nusxuri did not derive from Asomtavruli, saying it failed the bullshit test. You objected that I was "ruining" the article. Yet now you appear to agree with me. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No, I was reffering to your multiple edits that was indeed damaging the body and content of many sections not just Nuskhuri. Anyways, I've sourced it in the lead that those three scripts are developed from each other. Jaqeli (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you could show me where I've damaged the article, we'd have something to talk about. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have now restored material which you admit is false, and deleted tags for clarification. That is disruptive and close to vandalism. I've put in quite a bit of time removing the bullshit, gobbledegook, and other cruft from this embarrassment of an article. Rather than edit warring with you, I have tagged it as disputed; if you do not try editing constructively, I'll ask that the article be reevaluated to strip it of its GA status, which is clearly unwarranted in its current state. — kwami (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Vandalism? What are you talking about? I don't get what is your problem. Jaqeli (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is you screwing up the article. This is why I got so frustrated with you last time: You contradicting yourself with every other comment, removing material you agree is correct, and adding material you agree is incorrect, or at least you seem to.

You said that the scripts derive from one another. Now you've added sources for that, at the same time saying that they do not derive from one another. Don't you see the incoherence of that? — kwami (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And why have my changes to the infobox been reverted? — Lfdder (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What are you talking about? I've added the sources that support the idea that all 3 scripts were derived from each other. Where did I vandalise anything? Jaqeli (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And then you said they are not derived from one another. And removed tags for clarification of incomprehensible wording. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Are you joking me right now? I haven't said anything like that. @Lfdder: What was in the infobox? Jaqeli (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you read what you write? Because you appear to be unaware of what you're saying. This is why in the past it was impossible to have a constructive conversation with you. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Now it seems you're not joking. Show me where I've said they don't derive from each other. Just show me and link it. Jaqeli (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Here. Of course I'm not joking. Why would you think I was? And stop removing the disputed tag, or I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: [2] — Lfdder (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've asked you to show me where I actually SAID that those scripts were not derived from each other. And what are you actually doing? What is exactly disputed? Everything is sourced and still tag it with that dispute tag? I cannot follow your rationals. What are you doing can you please tell us? Jaqeli (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You said,

"The forms of Nuskhuri letters may have been derived from the northern Arsacid variant of the Pahlavi script, which itself was derived from the older Aramaic, although the direction of writing which is left to right, the use of separate symbols for the vowel sounds, the numerical values assigned to the letters in earlier times, and the order of the letters all point to significant Greek influence on the script. However, the Georgian linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon earlier forms of the Aramaic alphabet."

That is completely at odds with your claim that it derives from Asomtavruli.

And now we're back exactly to where we're started, with the passage I started this section with. Pages of discussion, and you haven't even understood the reason for the discussion. — kwami (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I was not referring to that statement. When I said that your edits were damaging the content and the body I meant your multiple edits. I just posted my concern under that section. If I was refering to that Pahlavi thing I would mention it at least. Jaqeli (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed that text from the Nuskhuri section. Was that the one you tagged the whole article with disputed tag? Jaqeli (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That was the most egregious thing, but there were many small corrections that you reverted without giving any reason. — kwami (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: 430 AD is a date for a first found Georgian inscription and so far it is considered the oldest. Jaqeli (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The field is 'time period'. What is the reason for having the 'date for a first found Georgian inscription'? — Lfdder (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Time period needs a defined date since when the script was used. What if it was used in 300s or maybe in BC's we don't know yet so thus 430 - present. Jaqeli (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwami

@Kwamikagami: Stop messing and damaging the content and body around. This is encyclopedia and stop making your own interpretations of the wording. I mean especially the Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri sections. You're making your own interpretations with the words there and they are wrong. Everything there is sourced and is written exactly what the sources are saying and stop putting there your own thoughts please. You're tagging and messing everything around in those two sections where every sentence there have their own sources. Just stop ruining the text around. Jaqeli (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I welcome any *constructive* edits you make. But it's annoying when you repeatedly trash the writing because you can't be bothered to separate improvements from garbage. You've been blocked for this kind of disruptive behaviour before, and I defended you, even though working with you is extremely frustrating, because I know you mean well, but it's not worth having you around if you continue to behave like this.

Don't revert obvious improvements. If I've removed something we should keep, could you tell me what it is? Some of the things I removed because I simply couldn't understand them. Putting incomprehensible gobbledegook back in the article does not make it the Good Article you want it to be. Sometimes I didn't remove it, but tagged it for clarity. The solution is to word it more clearly, not to delete the tags. Repeatedly deleting such tags will get you blocked, and this time I won't defend you.

My "interpretations" of the wording, and Lfdder's, are called "English". Your command of the language is not great enough for you to judge what is good English and what is incomprehensible. That's a big part of the problem. Please stop reverting improvements to the writing. I've also corrected links. The Aramaic alphabet, for example, should link to the Aramaic alphabet, not to Semitic languages. Can you point out any changes I made that compromised the facts or otherwise damaged the article? If you don't specify what you're objecting to, I can't understand what you mean.

So, instead of throwing out the good with the bad, why don't you start with the cleaned-up article, and add those things you find it to be missing, or correct actual errors? — kwami (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now this is something we can work with! — kwami (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Except you're still deleting tags for verification. When I tag something "what?", that means it makes no sense. Don't remove the tags unless you actually explain what it means. For example, we say the letters "are placed in a two-linear system". Gibberish: it means nothing. You have a choice: We can leave the tag, we can word it in a way that's comprehensible, or we can delete it altogether. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've made some corrections. Now it is clean, clear and better than it was. Jaqeli (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Good! Now we're getting somewhere.

A few points: The word "graphics" does not even appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, which has 400,000 words, so should probably be avoided. I couldn't tell you what it means. Those sections are dealing with the form of the scripts, so "form" would be a better word. (There may be others, but that's the best that comes to mind.)

Asomtavruli is not used for "stone carving". "Carving" has nothing to do with writing. It's stone engraving. True, we don't have an article on that, but that's beside the point. (If you want, you can always upload an image of modern Asomtavruli used in engraving.)

You keep saying "it didn't catch on and failed to gain popularity". The two phrases mean the same thing, and it sounds silly to say them both – as if we think the reader is too stupid to understand.

I keep tagging "Khutsuri" for a definition/translation, and you keep deleting the tag. Why not just give the meaning? Or shall I add "(of unknown meaning)"?

I keep adding synonyms, like K'utxovani for Nukhuri, and you keep deleting them. We're an encyclopedia. People use us as a reference. Since the "rounded" and "angular" names are used in the English literature, we should include them here.

Does that make sense? — kwami (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Nuskhuri 'form' section, I added some more clarification tags, for things I couldn't understand when I tried copy editing. If I can't understand it, knowing a little bit about these scripts, then our average reader probably won't be able to understand it either. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Kutkhovani is not used for Nuskhuri and honestly never heard or read about it anywhere. As for Khutsuri do you just want its translation? It literally means "clerical". Jaqeli (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I wanted.

I came across those synonyms just the other day, and I've seen them before. Maybe they're spurious? Someone mistook a description for a name, and the misinformation has been copied from one source to another? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No idea, never heard that name describing Nuskhuri. Jaqeli (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since they're not actually used in Georgian, and given that every source I've seen them in has explained them as alt names for Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri, I agree there's little point in adding them to the article. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We say Nuskhuri letters are written with a single line, but they quite obviously are not. Delete? — kwami (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The source says it's written so. Don't you think it's not needed at all to have a picture of three scripts under the infobox at the top? There's summary showing all three scripts down there. Or maybe you could put that image in the summary section? Jaqeli (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then the source is wrong, and we shouldn't use it. I mean, how could you possibly write an, zhan, or qar with a single line?

I think, if we're going to have a discussion of three scripts, we should have an illustration of the three scripts up front. It's just as important to give people a preview of what they're going to read in the intro as it is to give them a review in the summary. Also, with my current fonts, I can't see any of the Nuskhuri otherwise. I suspect that's going to be true of many of our readers.

Restored some more of the tags you deleted without correcting. For example, you say of some letters that "the closed circumference becomes simpler", but I can't see anything that could be called a "closed circumference". Also, "on the upper horizontal line the circle gets a smaller throat", but there is no circle on the upper horizontal line: it's just a line. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Georgia Through Earth, Fire, Air and Water

I have removed citations of

Berman, Michael; Rusieshvili, Manana; Kalandadze, Ketevan (2012). Georgia Through Earth, Fire, Air and Water. John Hunt Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-78099271-6.

The whole of the cited page is copied from a 2010 version of this Wikipedia article. Kanguole 12:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! — kwami (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Fonts

Mkhedruli and Asomtavruli now come with Windows, but we should have a source for a free, Unicode-based Nuskhuri font. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the following as unintelligible. It's been the subject of two talk-page discussions, with no explanation forthcoming:

In particular, in the seven letters

Ⴁ (ბ bani),

Ⴏ (ჟ zhani),

Ⴣ (ჳ vie),

Ⴗ (ყ q'ari),

Ⴘ (შ shini),

Ⴜ (წ ts'ili) and

Ⴝ (ჭ ch'ari), the closed circumference becomes simpler, and an open arc takes its place on one side. In early monuments, the letter

Ⴃ (დ doni) is written without the throat, then on the upper horizontal line the circle gets a smaller throat.

I can't fix it, because I don't know what it's supposed to be saying. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arch means that the letters got opened and got the archs on the left in

Ⴁ,

Ⴏ,

Ⴣ,

Ⴗ,

Ⴘ and in

Ⴜ and

Ⴝ on the right. As for

Ⴃ, the throat means that middle line which connects the circle with the upper horizontal line. Jaqeli (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that ყ used to look like ɡ, Ⴗ used to look like q, and Ⴜ used to look like B? So the letters we have are all modern Asomtavruli; the original script looked much different. Do we have any images of what it looked like before the 7th century? — kwami (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

True. Better if images available for that very date. I'll try to find out. Jaqeli (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold and italic?

Does Georgian have bold and italic? I don't mean in MS Word – in Word, you can add fake bold or italic facing to Chinese, but Chinese really has neither. I'm wondering if Georgian has those faces apart from the faking that MS does. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Bold or italic what? Modern fonts? Jaqeli (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Does Georgian traditionally appear in bold or italic? Do computer fonts have separate bold and italic designs? Or do you just have a single font that World makes heavier or slanted? If the latter, how do publications indicate emphasis? — kwami (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it traditionally ever had something like that. Digitally though you can have bold or italic letters. Jaqeli (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, digitally any script can be manipulated this way, whether it actually has bold and italic typefaces or not.

Was Nuskhuri ever used for emphasis within a line, or only for section titles?

Was red vs. black ink used?

What about the names of books in citations? Are they normal typeface?

Take the bold text in this file. Is that something that is only seen in digital documents? — kwami (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. punctuation, am I correct in concluding that here, : is used as a word divider, ჻ as a sentence or clause divider, and ·჻ (four dots) as a paragraph divider? He also has a double four-dot divider at one point. Do you think he's following any particular tradition, or do people personalize punctuation, so that it's different for each person? — kwami (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kintsurashvili is well-known calligrapher so I think he's following a Georgian calligraphic tradition but unfortunately I cannot tell how those dots were supposed to be used. I know abstractly but by definition being exact I cannot tell. Jaqeli (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional/obsolete letters

BTW, in print, ჲ is x-height, ჷ and ჳ have descenders, ჱ and ჵ have ascenders, and ჴ and ჶ have both. Do you know if the same is true of handwriting? — kwami (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And what function did the obsolete letters have in Georgian? ჴ is easy: I assume Old Georgian distinguished /qʰ/ from /qʼ/, and the distinction was lost. But the others: Were they diphthongs or long vowels? Or did they transcribe Greek sounds which never had Georgian equivalents? — kwami (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter Kwami! Those 5 were used only for Georgian language. ჱ equaled ეჲ like ქრისტეჲ - ქრისტჱ (christ). ჲ like დედოფლისაჲ (queen's) and was always written in the end and had same pronounce as ი (i). ჳ equaled ვი (vi) sound for example სხჳსი (others') and in modern Georgian it is now written as სხვისი. ჵ was pronounced as equaled Hoi like in ჵ წმიდაო ღმრთისმშობელო (Hoi Holy Virgin Mary). Jaqeli (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good info to add. But were they always equivalent? Or were they once different vowels, but over time the distinction was lost, so that ჳ and ვი were not originally pronounced the same, but came to be in the modern language? For example, in English, u was once pronounced [y], and eu was once [ew], but now they're both [ju]. Could ჳ maybe have been a Greek [y] sound, which was lost in both Greek (it's now [i]) and in Georgian? (That's basically the history of Cyrillic Ѵ izhitsa).

So, in handwriting, do they look like they do in print?

Please verify what I say about ჵ is correct.

Happy Easter! — kwami (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Handwritten and print ჳ are the same. I don't know exactly how that transition happened from ჳ to ვი. I think Chavchavadze removed it because the letter equaled two sounds so he preffered to write with two letters. Looking now, indeed it is odd for us to write two sounds with one letter so I think that was the main reason Chavchavadze removed all those five letters. None of them so to say became redundant in that period, it was just reform of the Georgian intellectuals back then who removed them by making written Georgian more easy to write so I doubt those letters became useless on their own. As for ჵ, it was mostly used in the begining of the sentences and had an emotional meaning like Hoi or longor sound ოოოოო (o). Jaqeli (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the sounds would have been conflated centuries earlier, not when the letters were removed! English u and eu are still spelled differently, despite being pronounced the same for centuries. If ჳ has always been used for two sounds, that would suggest that the script was designed for some language besides Georgian. I guess we'll need to find a source on the history of Georgian if we're to answer this. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A letter always representing two sounds is very common, at least for consonants. X always means /ks/ in Latin, psi and ksi always mean /ps/ and /ks/ in Greek. Also, there existed ligatures like ȣ for ou in Greek. So we can't exclude the possibility that something that is two sounds to us is just one special sound to some inventor, or some inventor just created some spurious letters based on ligatures of other scripts. Until we get proper source on this, of course. --Ahyangyi (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Strikes me, as an interested reader, that there is too little background information in the article on the circumstances behind these letters becoming "obsolete". The Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians did not juat wave its magical pen and suddenly they were gone from use. Common sense says that it would have taken generations to be completed, and there would have been opposition (which implies high level support for the changes). So how quickly did it happen. And what happened during the Soviet period? Also, how aware are modern Georgians of these letters - are they aware enough to read old books that would have used the obsolete letters? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Graphic variation of bani

You've removed this twice, saying the letters are "not related", but I keep seeing bani written much like mani, with the bottom loops written the same:

ბ (bani) may be written with a wavy line at top and a straight side, like a mirror image of ნ (nari).

Is there some way we could word this that you'd be happy with? — kwami (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ბ (bani) and მ (mani) or ნ (nari) have nothing in common. If you look closely you'll see that line or throat which goes up from ბ is in the very middle which is not true on მ or ნ. მ has a line going up on the right side where ნ on the left thus not in the center or in the middle. That's why I remove them because they have nothing in common in handwriting at all. Jaqeli (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I handwriting, bani may have the straight side of mani. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you read what I've said? ბ has no common handwriting relations with ნ or მ. Their relations are zero. Jaqeli (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Source for alleged 430AD date of earliest known inscription

My tags requesting a proper citation for this claim have been repeatedly removed from the article. The inscription in question is undated, so how can such a specific date be claimed for it? Vaxtang Beridze (in The Treasures of Georgia) just writes "Even earlier examples of written Georgian, dating from the first half of the fifth century, have been discovered in the ruins of one of the Georgian monasteries in Palestine". This implies an archeological excavation uncovered them - in which case there should be a proper archaeological report somewhere that can be cited about this find, and not some manual about modern Georgian. And the actual site should be stated, not the vague "in a church in Bethlehem" text that is currently there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is becoming very disruptive. You've been told several times already that it's reffed and if you click on those 2 sources you'll see an answer to your concern. Jaqeli 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And your allowal of deceptive or false content in this article is becoming troubling (I already noted this [3] which I corrected). This article is not perfect and your removal of tags designed to improve it are not helpful edits. In this particular case your sources are general and are not specialist works on archaeology. And they do not even support the content you claim is correct! The inscription is "dated 430 AD" the article currently claims - and this is for an iscription that is not actually dated. What the sources you cite for this claim actually say is "dated to c430" and "dates from c430", i.e. it is an estimated date, and those sources give no references for where this date estimation comes from. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some problems with understanding English? Sources are there. Just click on it and stop disrupting the article. Jaqeli 16:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)