From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 05:19:18 CDT
At 00:11 -0400 2005-05-16, Patrick Andries wrote:
>>>I was just wondering where the non spidery Glagolitic HA could be.
>>
>>U+2C48 HERU corresponds to U+0445 HA.
>
>[PA] Yes, I know (I mentioned it in my message
>lower down) but the point is that HERU is
>Glagolitic and found in the Glagolitic block, HA
>is Cyrillic (and not a very good transcription
>at that) and not found in the Glagolitic
>alphabet. Why not give the Glagolitic name to a
>Glagolotic letter ? KHERU.
Because HERU is a different letter, and because
the Slavicists suggested that HA would be
appropriate.
>(« Der Name dieses Buchstabens entsprcht dem
>griechischen Gruss khaire (É'ÉøɫɦɈ), was die
>Slaven in Thessanolike cher™ ausprachen », p. 19
>Über den Ursprung der Glagolica,Vojtech
>Tkadlcik, p. 19 in Glagolitica)
I do not have these books and I cannot verify what you are saying here.
>>>(Often called KHA for Russian, which I think is a better transcription).
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>>
>[PA] So you say, but you may have noticed a
>discussion about possibly improved Unicode
>names. Also since these letters [K]HERU and
>[K]HA are both descendant from KHI and the KH
>transcriptions reflect more faithful the
>pronunciation, I wondered why HERU was chosen
>here (in the non-spidery form).
What "KHI"? The Glagolitic names are, as you may
have observed, a compromise of sorts between UCS
habits of writing Cyrillic and Croatian habits of
writing Croatian.
>>SPIDERY HA is a "variant" of HERU thought
>>significant enough to encode by the experts who
>>participated in the encoding process.
>
>[PA] Ok. Thank you. Incidentally, I don't
>disagree with you on the encoding decision, just
>the name.
I don't see that you offer evidence to "disagree"
with the name. The Slavicists, when asked "what
do you call this" said "spidery ha". No
traditional name is attested for this letter.
(HO'MOL' is also -- apparently -- not its name; I
will follow up on this in another message.)
>>LATINATE MYSLITE is another such variant.
>>
>[PA] What does the latinate refer to here ? I
>understand the word, but why is it used here ?
The shape of the letter is like Latin M.
>>The whole thing is a bit of a mess, what with
>>Glagolitic names to transliterate, Russian
>>Cyrillic names to transliterate, and Croatian
>>names not to transliterate. Discussion of names
>>occurred in October 2002. For some reason we
>>decided to Stick with YERU and YUS, I suppose
>>because of the Cyrillic block. On the other
>>hand we have CI and not TSI. So the names seem
>>to be a mixture of transliteration systems.
>
>[PA] I agree.
That is why we gave the names in Glagolitic and
transcription, so you (for instance) can respell
them in French.
>>*shrugs* THe comment in N2610R refers to the
>>name, not the spelling, I suppose. All of this
>>is water under the bridge.
>>
>[PA] Yes, it would have been nice to have a bit
>more regularity (Y/J) that is all I'm trying to
>say. And are ISO names of no importance in
>cross-standard references (in other words,
>should Unicode have kept some of the ISO 6861
>names ?).
The UCS is already inconsistent (cf Cyrillic IE
and YI and YERU). Anyway it's done, and *ahem*
you had plenty of time to look at the names when
it was under ballot.
I try to make good names. We all do. The ASCII
restriction is hell. It's particularly difficult
juggling Glagolitic, transcriptions of Glagolitic
into Cyrillic, transcriptions of Cyrillic into
Latin, transcriptions of Cyrillic into ASCII, and
Croatian.
>>>And why does Y represent a hard I (in
>>>contemporean Russian phonology) in MYSLITE but
>>>a soft I (according to my Russian sources) in
>>>BUKY.
>>
>>Consonants are "hard" or "soft" in Slavic, not vowels.
>
>[PA] Nitpicking
Accuracy.
>Why is š sometimes called hard i ? At least it
>is very common in French, Petit Larousse
>Illustré : «y (i dur) » and not uncommon in
>English
><http://www.lahti.fi/museot/konferenssi/Russian_language.pdf>.
Consonants are non-palatalized or palatalized in
Russian. "Hard I" would be a relic of
pre-scientific linguistic description. The "hard
sign" follows a non-palatalized consonant. The
"soft sign" follows a palatalized consonant. YERU
indicates that the previous consonant is
non-patalalized; I indicates that it is
palatalized.
>>Please count the letters. BUKY has five of them in Glagolitic.
>
>[PA] This is true, thanks.
You're welcome.
>Now this being said I do have BUKI mentioned in
>several other sources (see Glagolitica p. 234
>for instance
I don't have this, so I can't see it. And do NOT
send me a scan until I get broadband, please.
(Thanks. I will tell you all when.)
>Alexander Kh in his initial message and other
>modern Russian sources apparently). What is the
>source of the name on page 5 of the proposal ?
>We can take this offline if you want (a
>Russian-speaker reviewing the Glagolitic French
>names mentioned this final Y as an error).
Glagolitic names are not only found in Russian.
They are also found in Croatian. I am sure -Y and
-I occur.
[OFF TOPIC]
>>>Why ? It this an initial izhe at the end of
>>>both words ? Initial at the end ?
>>
>>(You know, in English, we do not precede a
>>question mark with a space. We don't use
>>guillemets either. It makes things much easier
>>to read.)
>
>[PA] ;-) We find that the spaces and guillemet
>make things much easier to read.
When I write French I make an effort to use
French punctuation correctly. I was just
suggesting a way of making your English more easy
to read.
[/OFFTOPIC]
>>As I recall, both are called IZHE,
>
>[PA] Yes, I think this is correct (other names
>may exist though, «inogo, imeni» ? see
>Glagolitica, p. 52, « hic » p. 49 ).
I do not have this publication.
>>and we called one INITIAL because it tends to
>>come first and because we needed to have unique
>>names.
>
>[PA] Do you have any source for this ?
Professor Ralph Cleminson.
>What I have mentions two theories for the need
>of these two izhe : 1) the two triangular izhe
>[U+2C0A] is apparently used mainly for the « i »
>conjunction [i without the prothetic "y"/yod in
>areas other than Moravia [Glagolitica, pp.
>24-25], 2) it indicates the front i, while the
>vase shaped Izhe [U+2C09] represents the central
>i (?) [cf. Glagolitica, pp 59-65]. Could it be
>that the initial should be interpreted as front
>here ? In other words, could it be that the word
>describes here a phonetic aspect rather than one
>related to the writing position ? Again, just
>trying to understand.
I will ask.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 06:55:02 CDT