Talk:Cyrillic alphabets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


The Cyrillic alphabet article is way too long. I am splitting it in a manner similar to Latin alphabet and Alphabets derived from the Latin. There doesn't seem to be a standard naming scheme for this type of article, and I'm uncomfortable using "derived" here since it seems rather politically loaded (I don't know enough about the history of Cyrillic). Feel free to rename/edit/etc. Franzeska 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian language section[edit]

Removed the "but Cyrillic is seldom if ever used in today's practice" as it is utter nonsense.
Every formal text produced by government or government bodies has to have a Cyrillic copy/be published in Cyrillic as well, and Cyrillic is still being taught in primary schools - a practice required by law. (Page 2, act 7. Sorry, Bosnian only.)-- (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet distribution map[edit]

According to this map, Serbia is "the country that use Cyrillic as the one main script". That's not true, Standard Serbian language uses both Cyrillic and Latin script.-- (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


I suggest linking the Cyrillic alphabet page to the Latin alphabet page. Perhaps also the Greek alphabet page though not with much priority. It's good to link the Cyrillic alphabet page to Chinese and Japanese syllabaries. Speling12345 (talk) 3:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian / Article's division[edit]

Bulgarian is indeed a South Slavic language, but her script never got touched by Vuk KARADZIC´'s 1817 reform.

Better division: Traditional scripts vs. Vuk Stefanović Karadžić's scripts, or the like.

Nuremberg - Ángel.García (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Türkmen missing? == also Azeri missing![edit]

Türkmen with 5 million people! - True, trying to switch to Latin - but like Âzerbaijân and Özbekistân, both scripts currently in use. So why?

Alphabetic order[edit] Cyrillic alphabet

Аа, Бб, Вв, Гг, Дд, Ее, Ёё, Жж, Җҗ, Зз, Ии, Йй, Кк, Лл, Мм, Нн, Ңң, Оо, Өө, Пп, Рр, Сс, Тт, Уу, Үү, Фф, Хх, (Цц), Чч, Шш, (Щщ), (Ъъ), Ыы, (Ьь), Ээ, Әә, Юю, Яя

Latin alphabet Aa, Bb, Çç, Dd, Ee, Ää, Ff, Gg, Hh, Ii, Jj, Žž, Kk, Ll, Mm, Nn, Ňň, Oo, Öö, Pp, Rr, Ss, Şş, Tt, Uu, Üü, Ww, Yy, Ýý, Zz

Pronunciation: a, be, che, de.... ka, el, em , en, eng..... er, es, she.....

Nuremberg - Ángel.García2001 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Belarussian alphabet[edit]

Under the heading "Belarussian alphabet" the diagram shows a curly letter between Ya and the apostrophe (right at the end). This letter is not attested in the Belarussian alphabet link, does not appear on Belarussian keyboards, nor have I been able to find it by typing "Belarussian alphabet" into Google image search or visiting websites that provide resources for learning Belarussian. I would venture to say it is a made-up letter, but am not an expert – if someone with a comfortable aptitude in the relevant realm could skance it over and affirm, one would be muchly grateful. If it is a made-up letter, a new alphabet image needs to be produced and uploaded, then added to the page. — R160K (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's being displayed as a Unicode character so it can hardly be made up. According to Wiktionary it's an Abkhaz letter. CodeCat (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ҩ is an Abkhaz h, borrowed from Arabic . Removed. —Stephen (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian 'ѝ' letter[edit]

FYI there's a separate 'ѝ' in Bulgarian. Not sure it must count as a separate letter or the '`' is just a grammatical sign to the 'и' letter. It's a fact though that there is a 'ѝ' key on Bulgarian keyboards. In phonetic key order, it is produced by hitting Shift+X. Akostadi (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pluralizing yus[edit]

@ Double sharp. It does look a little awkward, doesn't it? I have a feeling I might have avoided the problem by saying something like "the two yus characters". LynwoodF (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@LynwoodF: It may need to be "two of the yus characters", because there are more (blended yus Ꙛ ꙛ, closed little yus Ꙙ ꙙ, iotized closed little yus Ꙝ ꙝ). I've changed it. Incidentally, I find it interesting that there are constructed Cyrillic alphabets for Polish, but apparently not notable ones for Czech and Slovak. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Yes, you are right. The whole business is very complicated. This is not really my area and it was only this article that made me aware that there was a Cyrillic alphabet for Polish. The only Slavonic language I have had much to do with is Czech and I have never come across a Cyrillic alphabet for that, but Poland was part of the Russian Empire for a while, whereas the Czech Lands were part of the Habsburg Empire, and so that might explain why.
This has reminded me a little problem I had with Czech. How did I pluralize háček ? I was uncomfortable with háčeks, but felt it would be precious to use either háčci or háčky – what do you do with such a highly inflected language? I settled for little hooks, but I now have the English word caron, which I discovered rather more recently. LynwoodF (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@LynwoodF: Yes, it does explain Nicholas I's Cyrillization of Polish, although if we're talking about constucted modern Cyrillic alphabets (like Steenbergen's) that postdate the Russian Empire's incorporation of Poland, I don't see why Czech and Slovak wouldn't have had such attempts. Particularly, the fact that a Facebook group promoting Cyrillic as the only script for Polish exists amazes me – I should have thought that idea would have left a foul taste in the mouths of most Poles given Russia's historical actions toward Poland.
I'd write háčeks if I used háček as the singular form, treating the word as an English word – which should not be a problem if we are comfortable with writing octopuses as the plural of octopus (and would find octopodes incorrigibly pedantic). I don't really like caron as its origin is obscure, but it is the standard typographical term. Linguistics more often uses haček due to the influence of the Prague School, but often the acute accent (for the long vowel) goes missing: this is the form that appears in the OED (with the earliest English citation given to be from 1953). Double sharp (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I suppose I am just too fussy, and somewhat inconsistent. I think I was uncomfortable with háčeks because of the two diacritics and the very English s, but I tend to prefer octopuses, crocuses and even cactuses. I particularly dislike croci, because people pronounce it as croaky, which sounds to me like a cartoon frog. Being quite elderly now, I use the traditional way of pronouncing Latin words in English sentences and would read the word as crow-sigh. My Oxford dictionary does not give that, but it does give my pronunciation of fungi and allows me to say funguses.
I could go on all day about my pet hates, but I won't. However, it is pleasant to chat to someone who understands what I am on about. I am weary of being vehemently "corrected" by people with no understanding of the case structure of English pronouns when I say something like between you and me or for him and John. LynwoodF (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@LynwoodF: Regarding Latin pronunciation, I didn't learn Latin at school, but instead learned Latin pronunciation when singing in Mozart's Latin settings of the Mass, with the amusing result that my default Latin pronunciation is very German despite that not being my first language (e.g. [kʰʀɔtsiː]!). But this is in an entirely-Latin context, and I would just go whatever the common English pronunciation is for an isolated Latin word (though I would probably check what the traditional English one was first), particularly those that have become common in English. I would agree that it's better not to use a form people are likely to mispronounce if there is another one that doesn't. Particularly, I feel that if the singular form of a Latin word is common in English but the plural isn't, a normal English plural should be fair game since the Latin word has been assimilated without its irregular-to-English plural. (I would allow cases like radius/radii where both the singular and plural are borrowed from Latin and common). As for Czech, that language is not a common source of borrowed English words, so writing háčky (or whatever it needs to be for the case), while a nice touch and providing a bilingual bonus, is not something most people are going to start doing.
I'm more inclined to just let things like "between you and I" go in other peoples' usages, and try to ignore it. I rationalize it by assuming that "you and I" has become some sort of indivisible unit in the speech of most people. I definitely try not to say it myself. (I may occasionally slip, in which case everyone has permission to point and laugh.)
Likewise, thank you for the enjoyable conversation! Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Quick note: háčeks is used as the WP:COMMONNAME plural in linguistics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Iryna Harpy. Nice to hear from you. I am just a fussy old man, but there is a little story about how I became uncomfortable about háčeks. A good many years ago I was chatting to a Finnish lady, who was interpreting for a group of Finns in Prague. Her Czech was much better than mine and you will not be surprised to learn that her English was excellent. No doubt she also had Swedish and several other languages. I found myself using háčeks and detected a slight look of surprise and puzzlement in her face. I later checked all the dictionaries and grammars I had (no Internet then), but I found nothing. So I got into the habit of avoiding it.
I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. LynwoodF (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@LynwoodF: If it is of some comfort to you, I worked with linguists from all parts of Europe (as well as the Linguistics department) at a top Australian university for many years. "Háčeks" was used as the plural form in active discussions, at conferences, etc. Even if you can't find it in a dictionary or a glossary of linguistic terminology, it is definitely accepted as being correct (bearing in mind that we had globally high profile visiting professors from around the world in tenure for periods of time on a regular basis). I promise that I, too, am a dogged pedant. Given that the word is not indigenous to the English language, the question to be posed is whether that dear lady had ever had recourse to active discussions with linguists where a plural form was necessitated in the context of an English language exchange. As I say, it is certainly used actively amongst linguists, therefore it fits with COMMONNAME.
All is well with me. Thank you for asking! Wishing you and yours a happy 2016. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Iryna Harpy. I shall feel more comfortable about it now. Have a happy 2016 and may you long continue to be a beacon of common sense in an ocean of unreason. I do my best to emulate you in some contentious areas, but find myself confronted with a wall of irrationality. LynwoodF (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Title / split[edit]

I would contest that "Cyrillic alphabets" is the proper title for this. There is the Cyrillic alphabet, and then there are Cyrillic orthographies for various languages, which happen to include various letter variants.

Appart from terminological concerns, this page is poorly organised, it cannot make up its mind if it is an article or a list. It should perhaps be split between Cyrillic alphabet (the article part) and a new List of Cyrillic orthographies or List of languages using the Cyrillic alphabet for the list part.

For the list part, you don't need to copy-paste the entire presentation of a specific orthography if it already as a dedicated article. E.g. link to Serbian Cyrillic alphabet but don't attempt to reproduce that page's content here. Instead, provide some key data such as number of letters, date of introduction, ISO 15924, etc.

--dab (𒁳) 10:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As for the first part of your comment, I can surely follow you, although "Cyrillic alphabets" doesn't really disturb me either. I guess this is a matter of taste. One might very well define an alphabet as a specific set of letters (which is also the case on the page Latin alphabets) and from that point of view "alphabets" is actually better than "orthopgraphies", as the latter also involves rules regarding spelling, interpunction and the like.
I fully agree with the second part, however. Indeed, this page is messy, it contains inaccuracies (like: the "South Slavic languages, such as Serbian, share common features such as Ј.") and there is not much point in simply repeating bits of information that can also be found on the pages of the respective languages. If anything, I'd think listing the languages like it's done on Latin alphabets (or in the case of Cyrillic on this Hungarian page) would make more sense. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dbachmann: Are you aware of the lengthy and heated discussion which went on about a year and a half ago regarding this article and also the one on Cyrillic script? I was rather on the periphery of this, but am broadly in agreement with the eventual outcome. Incidentally, I think your use of the word "orthographies" is way off beam. LynwoodF (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Having had no reaction to my comment, I have undone the edit and would urge you to think again before embarking on such an edit. LynwoodF (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


Do we really need the Polish entry? This is pure hobbyist endeavour, and has no link to common or historical practice. Also, the paragraph is badly worded and badly referenced (there's mention of a "Facebook page" - which?). I would like to remove the section. Your thoughts? Jalwikip (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jalwikip: Yes, I agree. Even if it were better referenced, it would be WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. Essentially, it's no more than transliteration which could apply to any number of languages and scripts. I'm going to go WP:BOLD and remove it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No оbjection on my part. I've done lots of stuff in my life, but this was indeed little more than a hobbyist endeavour, and I'm sure the same can be said about similar projects as well. I do believe a section about Polish might be warranted, but then it should rather deal with efforts to introduce Cyrillic in Russian-occupied Poland in the 19th century. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 17:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. I think that's more of a Russification or Pan-Slavic language (or one of the surrounding articles) issue, and WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Russification yes, Pan-Slavic language is quite a different issue. No, it's a case more similar to that of Moldovan, except that it never worked out. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite right. My mind was wandering into other areas it spills over into... and I went too 'lateral'. It's certainly relevant to Russification, however. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Thanks! Jalwikip (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)