Re[2]: Importance of diacritics

From: Alexander Savenkov (
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 09:31:42 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Importance of diacritics"


    2004-07-13T13:57:37+03:00 Peter Kirk <> wrote:

    > In the original Russian, the two dots would appear over the Cyrillic e
    > only in rather specialised circumstances or in texts marked up
    > beginners.

    Correct. Some people however would like to change that (i.e. so that
    the dots are no longer optional).

    > For in Russian these dots are considered highly optional, and
    > e with dots (pronounced o or yo - a spelling rule prescribes this
    > instead of o after certain letters when stressed) is not a separate
    > letter of the alphabet (contrast i kratkoe, Cyrillic i with breve, which
    > is a fully separate letter from i).

    That’s wrong, Peter. The letter «¸» is a separate letter. Please don’t
    spread your wrong assumptions in the list.

    > And indeed the dotless e is
    > reflected in the commonest English transcription, Khrushchev (and
    > similarly Gorbachev etc).


      Alexander Savenkov                     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 09:47:43 CDT