Talk:Cyrillic script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Macedonian Alphabet[edit]

I have a valid question.

I am a Macedonian, and my question is: If Macedonians have been Greek for over 3000 years like the Greeks claim, and if Alexander the Great Macedonian was Greek, and influenced Greece more then anyone else in history, and if everything the Greeks say about Macedonia is true, then why is the Macedonian alphabet on the Cyrillic page. Why is the Macedonian Alphabet not on the Greek page next to the Ionia, Athens, Corinth, Argos, Euboea, and Modern Greek Alphabets ? Do the Macedonians qualify as Greeks when we talk about alphabets, or not ?

Why is the Macedonian Alphabet officially using Cyrillic Letters given to us by the Macedonians Kiril & Metodi, and why is the Macedonian Alphabet not using the Greek Letters, and have it's own version of a Greek alphabet, and placed next to the Ionia, Athens, Corinth, Argos, Euboea, and Modern Greek Alphabets in the image that has been provided on the Greek alphabet page ?

By looking at this link, are we suggesting that Macedonians speak a Slavic, or Proto-Slavic Language and not a Greek Language while the Greeks openly claim that Macedonians have been Greek since Ancient times ???

If this is a serious web site, then I suggest that the work that has been done by Tome Boshevski & Aristotel Tentov be given serious consideration, because it will fill the void. The knowledge that has been given to us by Tome Boshevski & Aristotel Tentov has been used to successfully decipher ancient manuscripts that have been kept in Russian archives for centuries. Making that information available is better then hiding the truth, or book burning. Here is a external link to help . Here is an internal link without English translation Macedonian decipherment of the centre text of the Rosetta Stone

Obviously the Greek propaganda campaign still has lots of holes in it, with questions that can't be answered.

If I didn't make my question clear enough, then explain to me what you do not understand.

Best Regards !

Blagoja73 (Blagoja73 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC))

Dear Blagoja,

I will try to answer your questions:

"If Macedonians have been Greek for over 3000 years like the Greeks claim, and if Alexander the Great Macedonian was Greek, and influenced Greece more then anyone else in history, and if everything the Greeks say about Macedonia is true, then why is the Macedonian alphabet on the Cyrillic page. Why is the Macedonian Alphabet not on the Greek page next to the Ionia, Athens, Corinth, Argos, Euboea, and Modern Greek Alphabets ? Do the Macedonians qualify as Greeks when we talk about alphabets, or not ?"

what Greeks claim is that ANCIENT Macedonians were Greeks. However, Ancient Macedonia was conquered by Romans in 163 BC and the first slavs began settling in the Balkans in the 6th century AD, i.e. a long time after that So, it is completely impossible that ancient Macedonians spoke slavic language. The slavic writing system and orthodox religion were introduced in Macedonia in 9th century AD during the reign of tsar Boris I of Bulgaria (at that time Macedonia was part of Bulgaria). And Cyril and Methodius were byzantine missionaries on service of the Byzantine emperor.

As to the sources you provide, I would advise you not to read any sources from Balkan authors, because most of them are quite biased. Read sources written in English by internationally renowned historians. Moreover, this is the English wikipedia and not everybody speaks Macedonian.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Regards: Scheludko (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blagoja73 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Scheludko

The word Slav was first used in the 14th Century. I'm sure we all understand that the word Slav did not exist in ancient times, and it would have been impossible to refer to Ancient Macedonians as Slav, because the word Slav did not exist in that time.

It is like you say, that Greeks "CLAIM" Ancient Macedonians were Greek (it is an unproven claim). This is for political reasons. The Greeks also changed the name of the region from "Northern Greece" to "Macedonia" in 1988, because the fear of territorial claims by the Republic of Macedonia. The name of Aegean Macedonia has been changed by Greece 3 times in the past 50 years, finally ending with the name Macedonia.

You say that it is impossible that Ancient Macedonians spoke a Slavic language. Macedonians are Proto-Slavic, and there is evidence to show this. Slavonic peoples didn't magically appear from the wind in the 9th century.

Kiril, and Metodi were Macedonian, and the Macedonians were the first people in Europe to embrace Christianity and make it part of their daily lives. Read it from your Bible if you don't like my links.

My question is, If Macedonians have been Greek for 7000 years, then where is the Macedonian Alphabet ?



Or Here

link: link:

(Blagoja73 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

Hi, Blagoja. Since I am not in the mood for such ludicrous discussion I will be brief. The Macedonian alphabet is an alphabet not older than half a century or so. Why? Because there was no Republic of Macedonia (or whatever you call your country) and there was no such thing as Macedonian alphabet. This is due to the fact that your country is an offspring from Yugoslavia - a more or less successful project against Bulgaria and the Bulgarian nation. You claim a Greek as your greatest hero, you claim Bulgarian tzar as your own, you claim connections with Cleopatra and Ancient Egypt, you claim connections with the Roman Empire etc. etc. I've even heard on your television that God himself first created a Macedonian, who used a stone and a stick to create everything else.

About Greece and Alexander The Great - back then there was no Greece. There were couple of Hellenic "nations" but not a whole country. Greece was created at the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkan peninsula. Ancient Macedonia (a Hellenic kingdom or whatever you call it) has nothing to do with Republic of Macedonia. Not only culturally but territorially as well. What you are writing in your post is just а running around in circles. You fail to make a connection between Ancient Macedonia and Macedonian people today. Why? Because there is none. Do follow the advice of Scheludko and read foreign resources on this and that matter.Rbaleksandar (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Macedonian Alphabet was codified in 1940. The Greek Alphabet was codified in 1941. The Macedonian Alphabet was codified before the Greek Alphabet, and in a time before Macedonia was liberated, so there might not have been Republic of Macedonia in 1941 however the Macedonian Alphabet was codified. I believe if you have a look, you will find that there was no department for codifying languages in 1000 BC so it was not possible to codify the Macedonian language in 1000 BC.

I don't claim a Greek as my greatest hero. Greeks claim a Macedonian as their greatest hero. Tsar Samuil was a Macedonian Tsar, and Cleopatra was a Macedonian also.

There was no such thing as Hellenic Nations (as you call it). City States at best (which means a couple of tent cities). Macedonia was a Macedonian Kingdom, not a Hellenic Kingdom. The Hellenes were ruled by a democracy, while the Macedonians had a monarch until Aleksandar the Great conquered the Hellenes and made himself king over them. When the Macedonians defeated the Athenians they built garrisons, abolished the democracy, and sentenced to death all those responsible for the war.

I have waited months for an answer to my question, and you avoided it by calling it ludicrous. Does that mean you can't answer the question, so you insult me ?

My question is, If Macedonians have been Pure Greek for 7000 years, then where is the Macedonian Alphabet ?

Here ?


Or Here

[[2]], [[3]]

--Blagoja73 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

--- My intent is not to insult you but to give you an advice - do NOT read garbage that was written by pseudo-historians and read materials that were created by international teams of historians. I am again answering your question (obviously you did not get my message in the previous post) - the alphabet used in your country is the fruit of the project called Yugolsavia. Before that the territory of your country was occupied mostly by Bulgarians. Yugoslavia was first known as Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Notice that there is no Macedonians in there. Because there were none. There is a long history of territorial struggle between the Serbs and Bulgarians, which I am not going to discuss here. However part of it is why your nation came into existence - the sole purpose of it was to separate Bulgarians from Bulgarians. And it succeeded. I'm not saying that your country or nation does not exist. Not at all. Even if it is more or less artificially created it is there. The reason you find it difficult to find various connections in the past of your nation is because they are fabricated. It's the same as me claiming to be a Bulgar (also known as proto-Bulgarians) because 1)when the Bulgars arrived on the Balkan peninsula, there were more Slavs there than the Bulgars themselves and 2)after more than 1300 years of existence as a nation it is ridiculous to claim something like "purity" (which by the way sounds quite Nazi to me). A country and nation that are less than 30 years old cannot follow its history as such even in the BC-period. The Macedonian alphabet is a derivative of the Cyrillic script (since it was the Bulgarians who inhabited that territory during the Yugoslavia-period (and many centuries before that). It was altered to make it "independent" from the Bulgarian alphabet because it is really hard to talk about "our language" and "their language" if it's the same. Sources about the Macedonian alphabet (as the alphabet used by the people of Kingdom of Macedonia (bordering Thrace, Paeonia etc.) are scarce and there are still not concrete proves that it was indeed the alphabet used by people from Athens for example. But one thing is for sure - it was NOT Cyrillic because a couple of centuries BC there was no Cyrillic script, which is the foundation to many modern Slavic (and not only) alphabets. It is the same as me claiming that the Bulgars were using it before they settled on the Balkan peninsula, which is obviously ridiculous. Final words: there are no pure Greeks, there are no pure Bulgarians, there are no pure nations anywhere in the world (unless you consider some God forsaken island with a couple of huts and people there living in complete isolation from the outer world a nation).Rbaleksandar (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I should not have contributed here. Everything is Greek. I bet on Wiki I can find a birth certificate that proves Zues was born in Greece, and he was a Greek. And then I woke up.Blagoja73 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyril and Methodius[edit]

Please stop this madness, Cyril and Methodius were Greek as their names state. The whole world seems to know, except you.

Falsifying history is extremely dangerous and leads to fanatism and unexpected counter reactions.

Best Regards Denpap Denpap (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't greek people use the cyrillic alphabet now? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Fireleaf (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and why do you keep deleting that the Macedonian language also uses Cyrillic alphabet? I think you are the one that is falsifying the history. Fireleaf (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Fireleaf,

First of all, I was not the one who deleted the word of the so called "Macedonian" language. Thanks to Wikipedia's features, you can see who did it. Before accusing someone, you have to be 100% sure that your accusations are correct.

Furthermore, whether a so called "Macedonian" language is different from Bulgarian, is a matter of discussion and everyone has his opinion. As far as I know, you inhabitants of FYROM scream and shout, claiming that your language is directly originating from Ancient Macedonian and has nothing to do with Bulgarian language or any other Slavic language. Better decide yourselves.

As for whether Cyril (Konstantinos) and Methodios were Greeks or not, you can find the answer here:

Their mission was to introduce Christianity to Slavic people, but neither to impose the Greek culture upon them, nor to assimilate them. This is why they invented this new alphabet, combining the Glagolitic, the Slavonic and the Greek.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but history is based on certified sources and proofs only.

Best Regards Denpap (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not known whether they were of Greek or Slavic origin (or mixed?). All we know is that they were Byzantine subjects. So let us call them "Byzantines" and put an end to this debate. (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's ok to stay that way for now. Fireleaf (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Added sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica mentioning the two Saints Cyril and Methodius as Greeks If you have other reliable, english speaking sources proving the opposite, please state the sources and subsequntly modify the text Denpap (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid controversy they should be referred to as Byzantine. There was anyway no entity called "Greece" at the time. I think that it is undisputed that their father was Byzantine, and as for their mother, there is dispute whether she was slavic or not. If you call them Byzantine - you avoid the controversy.

Byzantine empire was an empire. An empire is a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. One of those nations were the Greeks. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. Deal with it. A Macedonian (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is evidence that their mother was Slav - you deal with it. There was no Greek entity of any sort at the time. The country was Bysantium. Enough with stupid Greek nationalism. They were Bysantines - not Greeks. They were Bysantines - with their mother most likely Slav - that is where they knew the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're not going to take your word on it. You need to provide reliable sources to support your claims. Otherwise you may be blocked for edit warring. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have references that their mother was probably slav, including he Oxford dictionary of Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 507. ISBN 0-19-504652-8. If you change it again that they were Greek - I will change it that they were half slavs and include the reference. Enough with Greek nationalism. They were Bysantine. There are references that their mother was slavic. Since this is under debate - you cannot simply state that they were Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 507. ISBN 0-19-504652-8. "Constantine (Cyril) and his brother Methodius were the sons of the droungarios Leo and Maria, who may have been a Slav."

Another observation is that the phrase "Saints Cyril and Methodius who brought Christianity to the southern Slavs" is factually wrong. They worked in Bulgaria among the Southern Slavs (late 860s and 870s) only AFTER Christianity was officially accepted as the official state religion of Bulgaria (864) - so there is no way, I would think, that they were the ones who "brought" christianity to the southern slavs/Bulgarians. I don't think that they also were the first ones to "bring" Christianity to the North slavs from Moravia - (who, BTW, are NOT southern slavs). If someone thinks they were the first ones to bring Christianity to Great Moravia - they should provide references and change the text of the entry accordingly. I think that simply stating that they were "Christian Missionaries among the Slavs" would be the most accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see sources provided here. A Macedonian (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have provided reference from "The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium" - this is reference #7 now, about their mother potentially being a slav - so please stop changing their description to simply "Greek". Since there is obviously a valid scientific dispute and there are some sources that list them as Greeks and some that list their mother as Slav - we can either go forever changing Greeks/Slavs etc. etc - or just accept the term "Bysantine" as a solution which avoids all controversy and is factually correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? IF THEY WERE, GREEKS WOULD BE USING THE CYRILIC ALPHABET RIGHT NOW! THIS IS INSANE! The alphabet was created a long, long, long time before the Treaty of Bucharest (1913), and at that time today's Macedonia (Greece Region) used to be part of today's Republic of Macedonia. That's how Cyril & Metodii were born there, in today's Thessaloniki (Solun). This whole article should be REWRITTEN! LEARN THE HISTORY, THEN WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT IT! Fireleaf (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What a patriotic macedonian douchebag. They were just half-south slavs/half greeks from Solun. The name 'Macedonia' is stolen from greeks. It's well known all over the world -- nobody in the world doesn't think Alexander Macedonian was Slav as well. You just wanna prove that your country isn't just yet another poor slav hole. I understand it. But please don't bring politics here. (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You say that "if Cyril and Methodius were Greek, Greeks would be using the Cyrillic alphabet by now". This is, of course, complete nonsense and it does not follow any form of logic whatsoever. At the time of Cyril and Methodius, the Greeks already had their own alphabet (for quite a few centuries actually, as everybody knows). The Cyrillic alphabet was not created for the Greeks - so there was never a question of the Greeks using it for their own language. It was specifically created for the Slavs, who *did*not*have* a sufficient writing system at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I seen in the article on Tuvan language that it uses another modified Cyrillic alphabet. Any reason not to include it in the section on Turkic languages? Jer ome 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's the regional language -- (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edits January 2007[edit]

I'd like to suggest the following edits to improve the quality of this page. I will add to this list as I think of more issues.

  • Move all of the alphabet charts to their respective languages, except for the Russian. This alone will make the length of the article more manageable.
  • Use Russian as the basic alphabet for the discussion and illustrations. I realize this is a political hot potato, but here is my reasoning. Russian has the most speakers of any language that uses Cyrillic letters. The basis of the orthographies of all the non-Slavic languages is Russian, not Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Belarusian, Rusyn, Macedonian, or Serbian. And it is modern Russian, not the pre-1917 version. Of course, there remains political resentment over treatment of minorities by the communists prior to 1991, and some language communities have chosen to abandon Cyrillic alphabets in favor of Latin alphabets. The fact of the matter is, however, that the spread of the Cyrillic alphabet was a Russian legacy. This is a similar issue to the variants of the Latin alphabet as used to represent "dialects" throughout Europe. German-style spelling is used for Germanic dialects, Italian-style spelling is used for the languages of the Italian peninsula, and so on. However much Sicilians or Napulitans or Venezsianos may resent the influence of standard Italian, they use its spelling (modified, of course), not the spelling of English or Portuguese or French or Lithuanian.
  • Add overall chart showing the add-on letters used in non-Russian orthographies, together with their IPA equivalents and links to the languages which use them.
  • In Relationship to other writing systems, add short discussion on the relationship between Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets (such as Belarusian Arabic alphabet.
  • Straighten out (tighten) the discussion about the Preslav and Ohrid schools.
  • Add footnotes for factual assertions, particularly in the History section.
  • Add a nice photo of high-quality modern calligraphy in Cyrillic letters (not Old Church Slavonic, as beautiful as that is)
  • Add actual Russian terms where they are used, not just transliterations in italic letters. Example: pryamoy shrift (thought-provoking example: why the German word 'Schrift' here?)
  • Remove the reference to "If your browser does not support ..." and replace with link to page of instructions on how to MAKE your browser support it.
  • In the Computer encoding section, clarify the discussion of using accents with Unicode.
  • Make Other character encoding systems its own section to aid people to find it from the automatically generated index at the top.
  • In the Keyboard layouts section, change the reference from Volapuk to translit. See my comments on the volapuk page. (And vote there too, please)
  • Add better selection of Categories
Shrift = script, just a generic European root or loanword, and hence hardly thought-provoking.
Would also suggest scrapping the ridiculous example about Standard vs. Serb/Mac. letters - those labelled here as Serb/Mac. are in fact less common but still frequently encountered variations in Russian, both in print fonts and in handwriting, and may (and generally do!) occur interchangbly, in their complete set, or for certain letters but not others in literate and accepted Russian handwriting (the example of Russian was used since a) it is my native language, about which I know this for certain, b) it is the most prevalent language to use Cyrillic). Considering that different slavic languages DO use different sets of Cyrillic letters (with Russian and Ukrainian dropping different letters, for example), this example is misleading and in fact a perfect example of how remote booklearning from distant lands can lead one to folly, not of the (quite unrelated) variation that does actually exist in different languages' Cyrillic alphabets. (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Adieu

--Cbdorsett 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. -iopq 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestions, but I think the adoption of the Russian alphabet as a basis requires a bit of discussion. The Bulgarian alphabet (IMO) is the closest to a "basic" version of the alphabet, while Russian contains a few oddball letters of its own, like ё, ы, э. The spread of Cyrillic throughout the Slavic-speaking countries is not a Russian phenomenon, although its export to other language families is. Also, its orthographic and typographic reform along the lines of the Latin alphabet seems to have been at least inspired in other places by Peter's initiative.
The Russian alphabet was very influential, but I'm not convinced that it is the basis for a broad understanding of all versions of the Cyrillic alphabet. I'd rather see some scheme rooted in the history of the alphabet's development. Michael Z. 2007-06-04 05:20 Z
I agree that section 3 is too long. I think it could stand to be its own article like Alphabets derived from the Latin. Franzeska 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are completely right but I do not thing it is political ( unless Russian government donate this site). Just 'easy made' job. It is more easy to do then looking for authentic Cyrillic reproduction. I hope your understand my English.

I make my suggestion in discussion to 'Glagolitsa' article. By my opinion Cyrillic same as 'Glagolitsa'(forgive my Russian phonetic) come from Coptic (and surrounded) alphabet. Unless I can read Coptic texts with out learning alphabet ( need learn language, however), it is clear for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

" Bulgarian brothers Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, monks from Thessaloniki, are usually credited with the alphabet's development." - usually ?!?!?! what's that "usually" - just on the weekends and some time on the wensdays ???? And the rest of the time 50 cents and Snoop dog are accredited maybe. Whoever wrote it have some nerves. You know the stupid commies tryed to say that the russians invented the Cyrilic alphabet during the 80s - that was also messed up. (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they invented Glagolitsa, which then either naturally evolved or was consciously modified to become modern Cyrillic around a thousand years ago. No 'commies' associated with that event, I assure you.

Suggested renaming[edit]

I think that the more correct name of the article could be "Cyrillic script" or "Cyrillic writing system" instead of "alphabet". Or "Cyrillic alphabets" (plural), because each modern Cyrillic-based national language uses its own alphabet with huge distinctions from each other (even the set of basic letters varies). The term "Cyrillic alphabet" refers (in full sence) just to the Old Slavonic Language (10-12 c.). -- Kcmamu 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the terms "script" and "writing system" for Cyrillic seem to be more restricted to the computing context, and not as often used in linguistics. However, I'm no expert. Michael Z. 2007-06-04 05:31 Z
As I understand it, "alphabet" has two meanings. One is the particular alphabet used in one country or for one language (as Kcmamu is using the term above), but it can also mean a script/writing system in general. So we can say things like "English is written in the Latin alphabet", even though the exact set of letters we use and how we use them is different from the alphabet as used for the Latin language. --Ptcamn 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating Latin C transition[edit]

In Classical Latin (from the days of Caesar and Christ), the letter C was hard, and "Caesar" was pronounced "Kaiser". By today, however, "C" is soft, and "Caesar" is pronounced "Seezer". When did this transition occur? By virtue of the letter-form "C" being used in the Cyrillic alphabet for the sound "S", it is clear that this transition occured before the 9th Century CE when Cyrill invented these letters. Further, perhaps the transition was only just completed, because there seems to be a tradition, quoted by user "Derek Ross" below, of calling the Cyrillic letters the Kirillitsa. 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No tradition, I assure you. I would know, since my own grandfather is named Kirill, in Russian, which uses Cyrillic, for that particular saint. On the contrary, this seems to indicate that the K>S transition for C occured much later, and that S=C was chosen for some other unknown reason, since St. Cyrill certainly thought of himself as a Kirill. Perhaps, much like R=P in Cyrillic, it was just borrowing on a familiar letter design that seemed basic, convenient, and unoccupied. (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Adieu

Broken table fonts[edit]

If your browser does not support Cyrillic text, see this graphical version.
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я ґ є і ї ў
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я ґ є і ї ў

On your system ("Win XP") this table appears with Consolas, where the italic forms where cursive but simply non-slanted versions of the regular, even though you have several of the named fonts installed, called Consolas. -- (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On my system ("Firefox/ (Ubuntu-feisty)") this table appears in a sans-serif font, where the italic forms are not cursive but simply slanted versions of the regular, even though I have several of the named fonts installed. -- 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Does the following work, with just a simple "font-family:serif" declaration? (Both versions work fine in my Mac Firefox Michael Z. 2007-08-06 23:23 Z
You changed "font-family" to Verdana. (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я ґ є і ї ў
а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я ґ є і ї ў

If you changed the font family to Verdana, the letters вгдийт will be slanted but other fonts will be like this: вгдийт —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So, why are и and й marked as "entirely different" from и and й? Even with the Verdana font, they're both still down - up diagonal - down; they're a lot more similar than, say, the two forms of "a". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Macedonia[edit]

If I recall correctly, St Clement was active in the Bulgarian Empire, and come from the region of Macedonia. Some editors insist on labelling him as Macedonian, although I don't believe his ethnicity can be known.

The phrase "Bulgarian Macedonia" was a compromise, and not inaccurate. See the details in the archive: Talk:Cyrillic_alphabet/Archive_1#Bulgarian_or_MacedonianMichael Z. 2007-10-26 02:07 Z

A lot of non-Slavic characters[edit]

Hi, I'm doing a lot of work with minor Wikipedias, some of which are in languages that use the Cycrillic alphabet. Usually these contain a lot of unusual characters that my browser renders as question marks. I found lots of links providing free Cyrillic fonts, but these only provide the Slavic characters I already have. Shouldn't it be a good idea to add an external link to some free Cyrillic fonts that do contain the non-Slavic and archaic letters I and presumably many others are looking for? Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sounds?[edit]

Can anyone include a table of the sounds of these letters? Most of the alphabet entries (Greek, Phonecian, Hebrew, Arabic) will tell you what the letters sound like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only alphabets that are used by a small number of languages can afford to list letter sounds. The sound represented by a letter normally depends on the particular language, if not on the dialect. More specific information can be found in the specific language articles (see Languages using Cyrillic), and at Cyrillic alphabet variants. FilipeS (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to make this information available in the List of Cyrillic letters. Instead of the currently redudant letter, at the intersection of a row and a column there could be IPA pronunciation of the letter in the language linked to article about the sound. Nikola (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Pronunciation in Russian" and "Major Variations" entries in a table? (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This entry has proved useless to me, because it has no list of phonetic equivalents to prevalent global languages, eg. English. User burisch)
I suggest to go to specific modern languages' alphabets, as the letter/sound correspondence may vary, e.g. Russian alphabet, Ukrainian alphabet, Bulgarian alphabet, etc. Anatoli (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of the Cyrillic alphabet: Serbia and Moldova[edit]

Should Serbia and Moldova be in light green or not? There is an ongoing discussion about Serbia on the page commons:Image talk:Cyrillic Europe.PNG. Feel free to add your comments, even if you do not understand German. I'm pretty sure everyone speaks English. --Komischn (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

St Clement was active in the Macedonian Empire[edit]

St Clement was active in the Macedonian Empire.

Well he is born in Ohrid, Macedonia. So that means he is Makedonian. That's becouse Ohrid is in Republic of Macedonia not in southwestern Bulgaria. Use Google map to see for more informations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The article Republic of Macedonia tells us that it was established in 1991–93, while St Clement of Ohrid lived in the Bulgarian Empire, over a thousand years earlier. I've adjusted the link to First Bulgarian Empire, so that it is more specific. Michael Z. 2008-08-28 21:25 z

Cyrill & Methodius in English[edit]

What's with Saints Cyril and Methodii? As far as I understand, they are called Sts. Cyril and Methodius in English, sv. Kyrill i Mefodij in Church Slavonic, but this encyclopedia is written in the former. Did I miss anything?

Glyphs showing up as MS Mincho[edit]

You have Windows XP and the glyphs were showing up as MS Mincho. If you have Vista, the glyphs will be showing up correctly. If you set the font to Segoe UI, the letter Omega will be shown. All other glyphs show up as .notdef, which is a glyph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop the controversy - Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines[edit]

All we know about Cyril and Methodius is that they were Byzantine subjects. Please stop calling them 'Greeks', 'Slavs', etc. All these determinations of their ethnic backgroud are just assumptions without any evidence. But that they were Byzantines - this is undisputable. (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We go on sources. The sources say they were Greek. I agree that we can't assume they were Greek, since Byzantium was an empire, but we're not doing that. Do you have any reliable sources stating explicitly that we don't know their ethnicity? kwami (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Republika Srpska[edit]

What alphabet is being used there - Latin or Cyrillic? (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say in between. The sophisticated answer however would be- primarily Cyrillic, although they incorporate a few Latin letters in their writing. A great way to investigate this by yourself would be to open any Serbian site on the web (search in Google for "") Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree here. Serbia has two alphabets. Some basic examples: "Српски" (Cyrillic Serbian) and srpski (Latin Serbian), "Република Србија" (Cyrillic Serbian) and "Republika Srbija" (Latin Serbian). However as far as I know (I am from Bulgaria) when reading they sound the same. Latin alphabet started entering the Serbian language approx. 2 centuries ago if I recall correctly.Rbaleksandar (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Cubberly?[edit]

The article's history section mentions some "Paul Cubberly". There is no article on such person in Wikipedia, and his credibility is obscure (if any). -- (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the person inst in Wikipedia doesn't bring his notability into question. There are many experts (in their field that is) that do not have a Wikipedia page. On Paul Cubberly, he is a leading linguist, with a specialty in Russia, working with Cambridge University. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Times New Roman font[edit]

Here is a table with using Times New Roman: Serbian and Macedonian letters are missed.

а б в г ґ д е ё ж з и й і ї к л м н о п ҧ р с т ҭ у ў ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э є ю я
а б в г ґ д е ё ж з и й і ї к л м н о п ҧ р с т ҭ у ў ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э є ю я
Why not add ҕ, ӡ, қ, ҟ, ҧ, ҭ, ҵ, ҳ, ҷ, ҽ, ҿ, ҩ and ә into the table? (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What the letters stand for[edit]

I cannot determine from the article what any of the letters stand for. Is г the same as the English letter G or what?

Remember, this is the English language Wikipedia, so English speaking readers such as myself would like to be able to understand the content of this article.

I'd say the most important aspect of an alphabet or writing system is how to pronounce the letters or symbols. So, please include a chart relating Cyrillic to English.

Otherwise, we'll have a whole generation of teenagers thinking that я is simply R written backwards, ya? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Latin alphabet article doesn't do that either. For instance you can't just outright state the pronunciation of the letter "j" because it represents completely different sounds in English, German, Spanish, etc. So to find out what the letters "stand for" you'll have to read the articles for each region variant (e.g. Russian alphabet, Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, Mongolian writing systems#Mongolian Cyrillic script.--Lairor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Saint Cyril[edit]

So, I don't think this article states it explicitly but I assume Cyrillic is named after Saint Cyril?--Lairor (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing statement in the introduction[edit]

The article states, in the Introduction: "Cyrillic is one of the two alphabets... expressions such as “И is the tenth letter of the Cyrillic alphabet” typically denote that meaning;"

What is this supposed to mean? How does the fact that И is the tenth letter in the alphabet denote anything about the idea that there are two alphabets? And if not every Cyrillic-based language uses every letter of the alphabet, is И always tenth? LordAmeth (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right - it does not make sense. Moreover, the paragraph is written as if the glagolitic alphabet is still being used in Church slavonic language which, to my knowledge, is not true. It was used in Middle Ages and should be mentioned in the history section. And if nobody has any objections I suggest this paragraph be deleted.Scheludko (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin Alphabet section[edit]

The sentence 'Russia mandated a law that all recognized must be written only in Cyrillic, to try to bring them closer to Russia's statehood', seems to missing one or more words. Any ideas? Bevo74 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Clearer now thanks to Thanks Bevo74 (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs reorganisation[edit]

This article is supposed to serve as the entrypoint for people who know nothing about Cyrillic at all. As it stands, the article fails that audience hopelessly. At the very least, it needs to prominently list the letters of the modern alphabet and what they sound like. That is the single most important piece of information people will come to this article to find.

Instead, we are thrown straight into quibbling about ancient Cyrillic, and then 1001 other digressions. The modern alphabet isn't actually clearly presented in this article at all, or at least not until the very last table.

The whole article should be reorganised, in my view, to much more closely parallel something like Greek alphabet.

There is no way, as it stands, that it currently deserves a B rating. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a year later and this is still true. This is a pretty terrible article! (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Currently the article says both that Cyrillic was developed in the region of Macedonia and that it was developed in the Preslav Literary School. Obviously at least one of the two claims is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was long thought that is was developed in the Ochdrid School (in Macedonia region), where the earliest writings were found, but recently it was found that the first (and numerous) writings in Cyrillic were produced in the region of Preslav Literary School. At the moment that is considered the origin of the alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Real Cyrillic origins[edit]

Dear brothers, let us stop talking some theories. It is time to begin scientific proves, not just myths. So I will show you real Cyrillic origin.

Cyrillic in 9.-12.century was not name for alphabet which we know it. Cyrillic was name for alphabet which made by Konstantine (Kyril) and Methodius. Today cyrillic was known as Srbica (Serbian alphabet), because the oldest name for Slavs is Sorabi (Serboi=Serbs, Sora on Sanskrit means Sky man, guardian of paradise, something like this). The fist mention of Slavs is in 4. century BC when Alexandar the Great mentioned "famous nation" (Slavyan) which live from Balkan to Baltic. But let us see alphabet origin.

When Slavs made the fist Europian civilisation in Pannonia (Vinča civilization) they made fist consonantal alphabetic system in the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar (talkcontribs) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article you provide says, in the second paragraph, that they are considered "proto-writing." That is not a "consonantal alphabetic system." Please don't use talk pages as a sounding-board for your opinions. (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Romania on the map[edit]

The map shows that in Romania Cyrillic alphabet is one of official scripts. It used to be, but it's not anymore for more than a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The colour on Romania was introduced on 17 July 2010 with the annotation "New light green shading is for nations that formerly used the Cyrillic script but do not do so currently." Coroboy (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevant references?[edit]

Is Nezirović,"Jewish-Spanish book history"[cited in Šmid, 2002] anyhow related to the "Cyrillic alphabet" article?

Šmid (2002)"The problems in studying sefardi language"?

Is that a joke? or self-promotion? Brambilla (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Serbian and Macedonian letterforms not Bulgarian[edit]

I've removed Bulgarian from the list of languages using the Serbian and Macedonian italic letterforms. That statement comes from

Clearly Bulgarian-Macedonian doesn't mean both Bulgarian and Macedonian language but rather Macedonian (which is closely related to Bulgarian), and doesn't imply in any way Bulgarian letterforms are similar in anyway to those mentioned.

I've also added a reference to [4] for both Serbian and Macedonian using those letterforms. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Map in the article shows that Azerbaijan is among countries using Cyrillic alphabet as one of official alphabet. It is totally wrong, since there is only one official alphabet in Azerbaijan and it is Roman alphabet. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On the map, Azerbaijan is coloured "light-green for countries that formerly used the Cyrillic script but do not do so currently". The colour difference is not enough - I will ask the creator of the map to change the colours. —Coroboy (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the new map is not correct either. It regards Azerbaijan as widely using Cyrillic alphabet as legacy. It is prohibited to issue any newspaper, journal, book or any other publication in Cyrillic script. Not any single website runs in Azerbaijani Cyrillic script. Only few old people still use Cyrillic script, but they are minority in here (less than 5% of population). Thus, Azerbaijan can not be called a country using Cyrillic widely. --Verman1 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not the map itself that is wrong; it is the wording of the caption.
The previous wording of the caption on the map referred only to the official use of the Cyrillic script: "the official script", "one of several official scripts" and "formerly used the Cyrillic script but do not do so currently". The new wording of the caption changes the description of the third colour by adding "but is in wide-spread use as a legacy script".
I propose that the third colour be described as "Cyrillic was an official script in the past, but not at present". —Coroboy (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic "alphabet"[edit]

Cyrillic is not a single alphabet (that would be the Russian alphabet, or arguably the Bulgarian alphabet), but several, much like the Latin script or the Arabic script. Serbian is not a variant of Russian; rather, they are both alphabets based on the same script. Any particular reason we wish to retain it at "alphabet", which people have complained about being misleading? Or, since there really isn't any need to dab, why not just Cyrillic? — kwami (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic would be OK. No dab needed, and it fits both the ISO 15924 and Unicode (alias) name. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Draft here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (writing systems)#Draught. That's my take on the original proposal. Cyrillic is given as an example of the difference in our sources between a 'script' (a general writing system) and an 'alphabet' (a particular instantiation of a script, with a specified sorting order, language-specific variants, etc.), but it could just as easily be used as an example of an article, like hangul or cuneiform, where the name is unambiguous and therefore it isn't necessary to include a category. So if people here don't like 'Cyrillic script', we could move it down to the 'Exceptions' section as plain 'Cyrillic'. — kwami (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see no reason why not to, the reasoning is sound. I would be in favour of such a move. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the Cyrillic example. — kwami (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
See Cyrillic (disambiguation) for the recent naming situation at WP.-DePiep (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What is "Old Cyrillic", and how to do we treat it?[edit]

An editor pointed me to this improvement re Yat: [5]. So clearly, the wordings like "old Cyrillic" and "old Cyrillic alphabet" have a meaning, but not straight Early Cyrillic alphabet. E.g., it also seems to include the alphabet to write (the language) Old Church Slavonic. So my question is:

While we look at this, I don't think any current wording like "old Cyrillic script" is wrong, it is just less detailed. Some possible affected pages: Irmologion (script), [6], [7]. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have checked all ~1400 article pages that use [[Cyrillic script]], and none uses the code: old [[Cyrillic. I think the Redirects Old Cyrillic and Old Cyrillic alphabet further cover the job well. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
My point of view:
1. "Cyrillic alphabet": it's better to use it only in "Cyrillic alphabet of Old Church Slavonic language" (instead of informal and partially misleading "Early Cyrillic alphabet") and in "Cyrillic alphabet (of a specific modern language/period)".
2. "Cyrillic script": it's better to use it only for the Cyrillic script in general.
3. In most cases, formalized expression "letter of the Cyrillic script/alphabet" can (and must) be replaced with just "Cyrillic letter". (Actually, in books, you'll never find "letter of [the] Cyrillic script" and only in a few cases "letter of [the] Cyrillic alphabet" -- mostly as "the Nth letter of...", referring typically to the Cyrillic alphabet either of Old Church Slavonic or of Russian recension of New Church Slavonic). And the issue was caused by expression "the Nth letter of ... script".
4. Is it possible to get a list of occurrences of "Cyrillic script" and "Cyrillic alphabet" with their local context (a few words before and after)? It would be useful to give more adequate answer for your practical questions.
5. For "Dze": "dzelo" is an academic spelling of the name sometimes used in the Old Church Slavonic context; "zelo" is a more general spelling (can be applied to any period, even to today's New Church Slavonic). And actually "dze" is not more than Macedonian name of the same letter (i.e. letter "dze" is not "derived" from letter "zelo", it's the same letter under different name).
6. "Irmologion (script)" is generally a strange article. It's just a set of digital fonts and MS Word's scripts, not a script like Cyrillic script or Latin script. The fonts were designed to reproduce one of real Church Slavonic typefaces of the 19th century, and the system was named after one of books printed (in certain editions) with this typeface. The accompanied MS Word scripts support New Church Slavonic typesetting and text editing using these fonts. -- (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
In general: last week I (using the WP:AWB editing helper) changed into the next situation: Cyrillic script is as you say. Cyrillic alphabet (singular) redirects to Cyrillic script, i.e. has the same meaning. "Cyrillic alphabet" was used here before, but was too confusing. And we have Cyrillic alphabets (plural), which is a list of language-specific alphabets, all within the Cyrillic script. That is what has been created (so mostly I changed many links to Cyrillic script as you saw). See Talk:Cyrillic (disambiguation) for the process. Only when a text would be plainly wrong or illegible, I edited the environment (as you did with Yat) by reading the paragraph before editing.
As for your remarks: 1:"Cyrillic alphabet" is not used at all as a page name here at WP: it Redirects to Cyrillic script. If you think that the Early one should have a different name, go to its Talkpage and propose it. 2: Indeed, and we do now. 3:re "Letter": this is not relevant to the (re)naming of pages in this. Any editor can make such a change later on, the page names are not involved. 4:List of occurrences: I cannot make. I can use AWB to generate a list of pages (1400 re Cyrillic script), and then if a certain text is present at a page I can edit it. What you can do is the special page WhatLinksHere: [8]. That gives a list of pages. 5: Spelling of Dze: not relevant to the Cyrillic name changes of this week. Again, you can go to its Talkpage to propose a change. Or edit if it is uncontested. 6:Irmologion (script) looked like another 'Cyrillic alphabet to me, but maybe it is not. If it is, it should be in the Category and in Cyrillic alphabets.
Concluding: I see no reason to do an extra check, nor what check that should be. Possible improvements, such as with Yat, can be done by each editor. Meanwhile, the current situation (like Yat before your edit) is not wrong, just a bit generic. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Names/Pronunciation for Cyrillic letters?[edit]

I'm asking again (like others did two or three times before - above), why is there no Romanization of the letters? The answers given are always skirting around the problem (e.g. "see the Russian alphabet for pronunciation"). The Latin alphabet article has the original names of the letters and how they were pronounced (and so do most, if not all, of the other articles on alphabets). Why is it so hard for anyone to add some kind of latinized pronunciation here? If it is such a challenge, then just write the original pronunciation used when the alphabet was first developed. Or if that's too difficult, then write the most commonly used original pronunciation when the alphabet was first developed. Or, if that is challenging too, then write the original names for the letters (romanized). Or, if that is tough, then write the first recorded known names of the letters (romanized). Or, the original intended pronunciation. It's hard to believe this article has been here so long with no one having done this.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has been around long enough yet it seems that you have not read it (although your tone might suggest the contrary). Otherwise you would have noticed the Letters section and that each letter is linked to an additional article, which gives exactly what you and others have been asking about for quite some time. No need to constantly post the same over and over again. Regards Rbaleksandar (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Moldovan writing[edit]

In "Cyrillic alphabets", sub-chapter 'Non-Slavic languages', Moldovan is missing. Even if their state be not recognized, the 250 000 people in Tiraspol' write their language in Cyrillic, and the language is uncontestably non-Slavic.

English Wikipedia should not be subject to the Romanian-"separatist" feud.

Nuremberg, Ángel García (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin is confusing[edit]

There is no consistency through the wiki pages for the origin of the cyrillic script. One link relates the origin to the disciples. But only one of the wiki pages dedicated to the disciples explicitly states that the creation of the cyrillic script is associated with Kliment.

The article about cyrillic script states who is not the author of the cyrillic script, but no names for who is believed to be or might be associated with.

Why the glagolic could have authorship while still stated on the wiki as "attributed to", but not the cyrillic? It is confusing to have several pages with similar info for early cyrillic and for glagolic alphabets stating slightly different versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're point is taken. I'm sure you already know this is because the various pages are worked on by different contributors. I empathise with your chagrin as I'm trying to unify disparate information on variations of the Rus' peoples, history (et al) on other pages. If no one else is interested in changes, I'm more that happy to support you and discuss any changes to be made here. This will also give other contributors/editors the opportunity for their input on the subject. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Any logical reasons for featuring Transnistria as a 'country'?[edit]

I hadn't noticed the Transnistria was featured in the infobox as being one of the countries which used the Cyrillic script. Fortunately, a once off edit has removed it. Does anyone have any compelling argument for featuring it there? If not, I'd like the talk page to reflect that it isn't an internationally recognised sovereign state and, as such, Wikipedia can have entries about Transnistria but cannot validate that which has not been recognised. Well, that's my two Transnistrian roubles on the matter and I'll adhere to it unless I can be convinced otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Un-muddying the Cyrillic alphabet soup section[edit]

It has been noted that there have been several very recent changes to the national languages using a Cyrillic alphabet section. Given that this section features links to the relevant main articles, I would imagine that this was intended to be a summary of the use of the script and not a nationalist interest group war whereby everyone is jostling for a place in the display window for Slavic peoples while shoving the undesirables out. I believe it should be a shortlist, not a reiteration of the main articles.

Ultimately, is this an article about the Cyrillic script, which isn't exclusively used by Slavs, or is it another venue in which to confound the reader? Is it NPOV or, as it now stands, a POV article for promoting nationalist concerns?

Considering that the non-Slavic languages have entries for minority groups in other nation-states and past use of Cyrillic in other languages are listed, something has to give. The flags in the info box simply don't tally with the languages (and have even had Transnistria tossed in then justifiably removed).

Either the 'official' script per nation-state should be advanced, or an exhaustive list of various languages which currently fall under other nation-states must be offered. In going back over edits just over the last few months Bosnian, Montenegrin, Rusyn, Serbo-Croatian and others have been added (usually with at least one other deleted), as well as 'national languages' reduced to 'languages'.

The only method by which to clear this up is to:

  • Break the section up into sections on current nation-states and their 'official' script/s, then elaborate on the number of Slavic languages and what preference is given where and under which circumstances (plus clarify whether these minority groups are recognised or unrecognised by the nation-state under which they fall). As a matter of balance, the same courtesy would have to be accorded the non-Slavic languages.
  • Clean this section up by keeping it to 'official script' status and add further links to the relevant main entries in other articles as was attempted by the Southern Slavic link. It seems that most of the historical information can be moved to the Languages written in a Cyrillic alphabet without offending anyone.

I would appreciate feedback on this issue in order to establish a consensus as to what this article is and isn't about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When I saw it, that section already contained mostly non-national languages (it only incorrectly claimed they were national languages). Moreover, it also contained some standard varieties of a single language (i.e. Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin). Linking languages to nation states incorrectly presumes a direct link between language and state. The best we could do is say that in such-and-such countries the script is in official use. --JorisvS (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In examining the 'main articles' in detail, I've actually become convinced that there several articles dealing with variants of the same subject matter according to whichever major interest group developed them from the inception, being this article, Cyrillic alphabets, Languages written in a Cyrillic alphabet, Early Cyrillic alphabet, Old East Slavic language and South Slavic languages (all of which have peripheral articles surrounding them which reiterate the same material dependent on whose interests are being served by the entry).
As it stands, this article is in dire need of a clean-up. The lead suddenly jumps into, "With the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union on 1 January 2007, Cyrillic became the third official script of the European Union, following the Latin and Greek scripts." The history is jumbled up with computer programming and typography issues, Romanization, etc. The specifics of typography and computer programming, plus transliteration standards are subjects dealt with on the Cyrillic alphabets entry and, logic would dictate, that they be elaborated on on the relevant page.
It would also make sense that the Old East Slavic language (which links to Early Cyrillic alphabet) should have a link to South Slavic languages and visa versa. Languages written in a Cyrillic alphabet (which implies those which are currently written in Cyrillic) isn't being used effectively.
All you need to do is check the left-hand language bar to see which languages each of these articles have been translated into (or, more likely, translated from) to get an indication of who created what page. What has ensued in misinformation/disinformation and, most irritatingly, an utter mess from the point of view of a non-Slav (hopefully, English speakers/readers who want to get a better grasp of facts surrounding the history of Cyrillic and Slavic cultures). Try a google search for Cyrillic. Dependent on which Wikipedia page you land on, you're going to come away with a completely different understanding of the history, etc. More frustratingly, you won't be able to find anything particularly enlightening as regards what you were looking for.
For the short term, it's probably best to leave the section as you've re-jigged it. As no one seems to be interested in the ramifications, I think I'll start adding a couple more flags to the infobox in a week or so and see whether anyone really is interested in trying to make honest, realistic changes to reflect facts rather than nationalist interests. The entries need to be inclusive, not exclusive. It isn't going to be an easy job, but it's a necessary one in order to quash the elitism that has been built into English Wikipedia articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudographic characters[edit]

The term pseudographic character or pseudographics is used twice, but without any explanation or link. I'm a computational linguist, but I've never seen this term before (although it's apparently used for the old box-drawing characters that were used in MS-DOS and other 8-bit systems). Can it be defined, or linked? Mcswell (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Information about numerology?[edit]

I wonder about this. There is an outstanding interest to force the letters to be equal with the numbers in Cyrillic, in Latin, in Chinese, in many text scripts. Speling12345 (talk) 6:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

On the infobox of cryllic script[edit]

And all the small letters articles (ex. I'm confused about why this is on wikipedia to be honest and not on wiktionary where it seems to fit better. You can link to wiktionary you know, and stuff like etymology, word history does get put on wiktionary. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Serbian_Cyrillic_script_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, with the question "Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"--Zoupan 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

numerals 0..9 and their (Unicode) encoding[edit]

Western Arabic numerals sans-serif
Indian Vehicle Registration Plates Demo.png
License plate Greece Agricultural.JPG
Iraq license plate iraq 2001.jpg
Israel licenseplate 2.JPG
Russian diplomatic license plate 014 D 161.jpg

re: numerals in daily life
"Arabic numerals or Hindu-Arabic numerals or Indo-Arabic numerals are the ten digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9."
There should be a note about these glyphs. While Latn.a is a homoglyph of Cyrl.а the digits are coded the same way in Latn, Cyrl, Grec, secular Hebr and other ISO 15924 scripts. ar.Wikipedia is using Western Arabic numerals in years, paragraph counting, etc. while the number plates in some Arabic countries are using the digits from the Arab Unicode block.
A note about numeral encoding is missing in the article, Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

more examples from c:License plates are available at test:most-perfect magic square#numerals in daily life . ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
modified by ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Dungan language[edit]

The Dungan language is Sinitic, but is spoken outside China, so it was not appropriate to add China to the list of countries. (A glitch occurred during my edit, and so I am completing my edit summary here.) LynwoodF (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Vinča symbols[edit]

Vinča symbols that are about 8 000 years old contain 22 Cyrillic letters - it's all about the oldest writing system that is still in use in Serbia. History must be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Vinča symbols contain 22 Cyrillic letters? How can they, if Vinča culture predates Cyrillic long before? The only possible thing you can mean is that Cyrillic alphabet contains 22 Vinča symbols. Also, what you mean "still in use in Serbia"? What is still in use in Serbia, Vinča symbols? What you say needs to be corrected? FkpCascais (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It’s just a bit of popular pseudoscience of the kind unfortunately all-too-common in discussions of Balkan linguistics, but bearing no relation to reality (the early Cyrillic alphabet was identical to uncial Greek script with a few added letters, and had little or nothing to do with Vinča script). This pseudoscientific claim of a relation between Vinča and Cyrillic seems to have also made its way into the article itself — note the »Old European Script« that someone added to the parent systems in the infobox. The claim is sourced to Gimbutas, but of course no page is provided, and it’s very likely Gimbutas never made any claim of the sort (and a quick search through the cited source doesn’t turn up anything relevant). —Vorziblix (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

languages [..] still not fully supported[edit]

"The Unicode 5.1 standard, released on 4 April 2008, greatly improves computer support for the early Cyrillic and the modern Church Slavonic language.
Unicode [section..]
Some languages, including Church Slavonic, are still not fully supported.[citation needed]"

I found [9] that at least says "This character is used as the left-most component of a titlo when a titlo balances over multiple letters. It has been encoded in Unicode 8.0" [search for "Unicode 8.0", as substituted ligatures(?)]. I really know nothing about this, maybe or maybe not [Old] Church Slavonic is not fully supported, maybe still not "some" other languages. comp.arch (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

is it a thing or the source of things?[edit]

I'm not sure how to ask this. The lede says C is a writing system and then says it is the basis of alphabets. Does anyone actually use "Cyrillic" or do they use various linguistic forms of it? Practically speaking, I was reading a Wiki article which had the name in "Cyrillic", with letters that do not occur in modern northern Slav languages, and no explanation given as to whether this word was real or back-formed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyrillic script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

New picture added[edit]

There are Cyrillic Text with Many Images on the Left. I do not understand what aims this picture. It is useless to this article. Please, explain its meaning, or remove it. Jingiby (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyrillic script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sample of Cyrillic text in information box[edit]

This may have been mentioned somewhere else, but there are so many different comments on this page I have no way of telling - short of reading them all, which I have no intention of doing (there comes a point where you can have too much information). I just wanted to know why the sample of Cyrillic text in the information box (with all the flags) is such an untypical version of the script - a Romanian text from 1850. It contains various letters that are no longer used except perhaps in the Orthodox church, it's in a font that is hard for many readers of Cyrillic to decipher, standard Romanian hasn't been written in Cyrillic since 1860 (just ten years after this sample appeared), and Romanian is one of the Romance languages (which are typically written in Latin, not Cyrillic script). At the risk of offending someone - which seems only too easy, judging by some of the comments on this page! - why not provide a sample of modern Russian, since according to the Wikipedia article "Cyrillic alphabets" Russian is the Cyrillic language spoken by the most people? ("As of 2011, around 252 million people in Eurasia use [Cyrillic] as the official alphabet for their national languages. About half of them are in Russia") — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


I think that the inclusion of Ethiopia in the infobox list of countries for which Cyrillic is the "national script" is misleading, notwithstanding the link to the archaic script that follows. MapReader (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) MapReader (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just removed that. I mean come on, Saints Cyril and Methodius weren't even born until four centuries after the final version of Ge'ez syllabary was established. Whoever put it in the inbox clearly had no idea what they were doing.Jaro7788 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)