Re[2]: Importance of diacritics

From: Alexander Savenkov (
Date: Thu Jul 15 2004 - 07:21:19 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Umlaut and Trma, was: Variation sele ctors and vowel marks"

    2004-07-14T19:20:35+03:00 Peter Kirk <> wrote:

    >>>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).
    >>Thats wrong, Peter. The letter is a separate letter. Please dont
    >>spread your wrong assumptions in the list.
    > I meant this in the sense that the two letters are interfiled in
    > dictionaries, e.g.


    > At least this is the ordering in my Collins Russian dictionary, and I
    > understand it to be the standard Russian ordering. Am I wrong here?

    Not at all, though different dictionaries use different approaches.
    The practice of filing * and * entries under one section is quite
    common, it however doesnt imply that one of these letters is not
    aseparate letter. There are two reasons for this kind of ordering:

    1. The words with theletter are almost always written with
    so readers will tend to mix them.
    2. The arent many words with initial , so it's safe to file all
    the * entries along with *.

    > By contrast, and are not interfiled.

    I cant see why you put these as an example. They are completely
    different letters (vowel and consonant), notwithstanding their similar
    look. One of my dictionaries have a section called -ܻ which
    obviously means that the entries cover the letters , , and .
    Unlike , section the entries are sorted alphabetically. Just like
    and all of these letters are meant to be separate.


      Alexander Savenkov                     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 15 2004 - 07:25:47 CDT