Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Dobrodošli na forum Medžuslovjanskogo jezyka! Želajemo vam mnogo prijemnosti.
Добродошли на форум Меджусловјанского језыка! Желајемо вам много пријемности.
Welcome to Interslavic! We hope you enjoy your visit.

Sejčas pogledajete naše forum kako gosť. To znači, že imajete ograničeny dostup do někojih česti forum i ne možete koristati vse funkcije. Ako li pristupite v našu grupu, budete imati svobodny dostup do sekcij preznačenyh jedino za členov, na pr. založeňje profila, izsylaňje privatnyh poslaň i učestničstvo v glasovaňjah. Zapisaňje se jest prosto, bystro i vpolno bezplatno.

Сејчас погледајете наше форум како гость. То значи, же имајете ограничены доступ до некојих чести форум и не можете користати все функције. Ако ли приступите в нашу групу, будете имати свободны доступ до секциј презначеных једино за членов, на пр. заложеньје профила, изсыланьје приватных послань и учестничство в гласованьјах. Записаньје се јест просто, быстро и вполно безплатно.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Pristupite v našu grupu! Приступите в нашу групу! Join our community!
Ako li už jeste člen, prijavite se, že byste mogli koristati vse možnosti:
Ако ли уж јесте член, пријавите се, же бысте могли користати все можности:
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
One more thought about orthography
Topic Started: Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM (3,705 Views)
wannabeme
Member Avatar

Jarvi
Sep 12 2010, 05:14 PM
Russians were writing in Old Slavic (Southern Slavic language actuall), and Russian phonology wasn't applied in orthography those times.

But that's all offtop.
What do you say about to write jiх and jiмено? or jих and jимено? what would be correct from your point of view?
ih, imeno :)
их, имено
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

Why? If it is not i but ji?? I can not catch the logic.
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

Jarvi
Sep 12 2010, 06:17 PM
Why? If it is not i but ji?? I can not catch the logic.
The logic is this.
Do you pronounce in Russian imja or jimja?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
wannabeme
Sep 12 2010, 04:24 PM
i vs н (today written и, but as you can notice it was only little i infron of other i, the same principle like e - ѥ)
actually it's based on the greek Η which sounds like [и]
Edited by iopq, Sep 12 2010, 07:29 PM.
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

wannabeme
Sep 12 2010, 07:01 PM
Jarvi
Sep 12 2010, 06:17 PM
Why? If it is not i but ji?? I can not catch the logic.
The logic is this.
Do you pronounce in Russian imja or jimja?
This is not correct logic, because the logical outcome from your message is: "Write as Russians pronounce".

I don't understand.
You told that there is perfect Methodius' system:

a ja
e je
u ju
o jo
i ji

then you go

Quote:
 
Thus I say it is better to have a, ja, i , ji, e ,je


and now you write that you are not gonna use ji
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
Quote:
 
By definition, a majority of Slavs use a natural system. Natural is what is actually used now, not what was used 1000 years ago. 1000-year-old deviations from this system are no more deviations now, they are a part of the standard. Or, are you going to say that Proto-Slavic was a crippled unnatural form of Proto-Indo-European created by people who misunderstood their own language? And current Slavic languages are crippled unnatural versions of Proto-Slavic?

Of course not, but many of the inconsistencies of the current systems are the result of evolution. Every language is what it is because of certain sound changes, and applying them to one perfectly regular verb will spawn irregular verbs in every language. That's why it's always useful to go back to the source, and that's also why Common Slavic - even though Slovianski is in no way officially connected to it - plays a very prominent role in the creation of words. The same can also be said about orthography.

But like I said, any cyrillisation of Naučni Slovianski would make it look extremely archaic and thus would defy the whole idea behind N.S. So anybody who wants to play with the idea is most welcome do to so, but I doubt very much if the result will ever by anything near useful.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
The problem of those two exceptions COULD be solved by using ô instead of ĺ (which would match the ę in bręg), but we'd lose the funny a/o effect of ĺ)

I agree it's funny, but I'd rather be serious in this case. It is easy to explain to people that "Slovianski = Naučni Slovianski minus diacritics, with the exception of y since many languages already have this character and in none of them it is i with diacritics". But in the case of ĺ/ô, all languages have just either a or o, so there is no reason not to use the majority character (o) with diacritics, as Naučni Slovianski does in all other cases.

Yes, I quite agree. I've been a bit reluctant on this one, but indeed, I feel inclined to switch this one to ô - unless anybody objects, of course.

Quote:
 
We could use ḍl/ṭl, ḑl/ţl, ḓl/ṱl or ḏl/ṯl.

I thought about that. But there's one disadvantage: Slovianski does not have d or t in these positions, neither should it have them as they exist in West Slavic only. If Naučni Slovianski is just Slovianski + diacritics, then we can't have them d's and t's here. But I also feel they should SOMEHOW be represented anyway, preferably without resorting to Latin Extended Additional, combining diacritics and the like. Because Ĺ and Ľ are already taken, and Ł would be too confusing for Poles, there's only two solutions left in Latin Extended-A: Ļ and Ŀ. Or go for the easier solution, namely write "mo`liti" (` is already functional in cases like s`delati; here is doesn't represent a jer, of course, but we could use it for "anything that disappears").

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
But for the moment Naučni Slovianski is far from final yet.

Okay. Naučni Slovianski is great already now, but take your time to make it perfect.

Sure, but any input is greatly appreciated! So if any of you find something is missing, or something could be missed, don't hesitate to mention it!

[ч]
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
wannabeme
Sep 12 2010, 04:24 PM
i vs н (today written и, but as you can notice it was only little i infron of other i, the same principle like e - ѥ)
actually it's based on the greek Η which sounds like [и]

Yeah, thats what you would say when you see "eta" but the fact is that eta is E not I. And the fact is that н always is softening and it really does look like two I. It is only my idea. I have never read or heard such a thing anywhere. We dont know what Methodius was thinking but I am trying to find some logic and reason in everything. Usualy people who are constructers like Methodius think that way.

Quote:
 
This is not correct logic, because the logical outcome from your message is: "Write as Russians pronounce".

I don't understand.
You told that there is perfect Methodius' system:

a ja
e je
u ju
o jo
i ji


Ok Jarvi, I said following:
1) Oldslavs used to use both i (like Belorussians use today) and и (which meant ji).
2) Russians particulary melt i and и and write и everywhere. Thus, on the place where it should be и and on the place where i should be.
3) So Oldslavs wrote iмѧ = imę. Russians made i=и and now they write имя but they still say imja and not jimja AFIK.
4) There is logic, you only must give me a chance to explain it to you. Sometimes things are not so like they seem to be on the first look.
Edited by wannabeme, Sep 12 2010, 09:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

1) No, Belarusians use today only i, it is softening. Ukrainians also use i but not in the same positions where Old Slavic had i.
2) Do you mean that one was softening and the other not?
3) That's true, but CZ write jimeno and not imeno.
4) So please explain, why aren't you going to use ji? or where are you going to use it?
"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

Jarvi
Sep 13 2010, 06:23 AM
1) No, Belarusians use today only i, it is softening. Ukrainians also use i but not in the same positions where Old Slavic had i.
2) Do you mean that one was softening and the other not?
3) That's true, but CZ write jimeno and not imeno.
4) So please explain, why aren't you going to use ji? or where are you going to use it?
1) OK
2) Yes
3) But Czech pronounse imeno, sem and write jimeno, jsem
4) We must agree about softening first. When is gonna be softened and how. I cannot tell you right now, must research first.
5) You will get the anwer as soon as possible.
6) Try to research too!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moraczewski
Member Avatar

2) but I don't know when it was not softening.
in pre-1917 Russian "i" was used in words like знанiе and it was softening also! Non-softening was only ы

"I nenít pochyby, že kdokoli chce a umí, může sobě stworiti jazyk krásný, bohatý, libozwučný a wšemožně dokonalý: ale jazyk takowý nebudě wíce národnim, alebrž osobním jazykem toho kdo jej sobě udělal".
František Palacký. Posudek o českém jazyku spisovném, 1831.

[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IJzeren Jan
Member Avatar
Jan van Steenbergen
From a more contemporary point of view, I'd say it's more like this:
a ja
e je
u ju
o jo
y (j)i

Because y can never occur at the beginning of a word or syllable, it doesn't really matter whether we'd have initial i- or initial ji-. Some languages (Polish, Russian, Bulgarian) exclude the possibility of ji, while some languages (Czech, Ukrainian) seem to distinguish between initial i- and ji-, although I don't know on what grounds.

The current solution is that i- is always used at the beginning of words, and -ji- after a vowel (like in svojih) etc.
Človeku, ktoromu je trudno s soboju samim, verojetno tož bude trudno s vsim inim.

Slovianski - Словянски - Словјански
[čćч]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

IJzeren Jan
Sep 13 2010, 09:28 PM
From a more contemporary point of view, I'd say it's more like this:
a ja
e je
u ju
o jo
y (j)i

Because y can never occur at the beginning of a word or syllable, it doesn't really matter whether we'd have initial i- or initial ji-. Some languages (Polish, Russian, Bulgarian) exclude the possibility of ji, while some languages (Czech, Ukrainian) seem to distinguish between initial i- and ji-, although I don't know on what grounds.

The current solution is that i- is always used at the beginning of words, and -ji- after a vowel (like in svojih) etc.
Yeah, exept if we have jo - e rule. Than there is no jo as a softening character but only as j+o.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
IJzeren Jan
Sep 13 2010, 09:28 PM
From a more contemporary point of view, I'd say it's more like this:
a ja
e je
u ju
o jo
y (j)i

Because y can never occur at the beginning of a word or syllable, it doesn't really matter whether we'd have initial i- or initial ji-. Some languages (Polish, Russian, Bulgarian) exclude the possibility of ji, while some languages (Czech, Ukrainian) seem to distinguish between initial i- and ji-, although I don't know on what grounds.

The current solution is that i- is always used at the beginning of words, and -ji- after a vowel (like in svojih) etc.
At the beginning of a word Ukrainian has і in the cases where it was a reflex of *ei , while it has ї in the cases where it was a reflex of *ѣ
In the middle of the word it also has it in pronouns and on mopheme boundaries where one morpheme ends in й and the next begins with і or и
Edited by iopq, Sep 16 2010, 01:11 AM.
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wannabeme
Member Avatar

How should I write prĕbiti or přebiti? The first is better for Ukrainians and the second for Poles and Czechs. What is your oppinion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iopq
Administrator
wannabeme
Oct 14 2010, 12:36 PM
How should I write prĕbiti or přebiti? The first is better for Ukrainians and the second for Poles and Czechs. What is your oppinion?
prebiti since the reflex of *er in Slovianski is re, not rĕ or ře
Bo v c'omu žytti pomiž baletom i svobodoju zavždy potribno vybyraty svobodu, navit' jakščo ce čehoslovac'kyj general.
Sergij Žadan "Anarchy in the Ukr"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fonologija i pravopis · Next Topic »
Add Reply