|
EDIT
Bulgarian Cyrillic Bulgarian Cyrillic is different from the conventional, Russian Cyrillic. That difference applies to the lowercase letters, which are not a mini version of the capital letter but have their own distinguished shapes which derive from hand-writing. Those shapes are more recognizable and rounded. That roundness breaks the rigid verticality, so typical for the Cyrillic and creates more mild and appealing rhythm. That rounded shapes of the letters, together with bigger number of ascenders and descenders, also increases the legibility and makes the text block more stable and homogeneous.
The Bulgarian glyph for this character is more rounded and has an ascender, which makes the two counters bigger. |
|
|
|
|
|
EDIT
en_hist_cyr_type_master_v2_4
Non-Latin Type Cyrillic 1. History 1.1. Short definition. Следният абзац от предговора на »Кирилометодиевска енциклопедия« (т. I, стр. 5), ни дава като начало яснота по същността на кирилската писменост: »Everyone knows that Bulgaria is the classic country of the Slavic culture. The first Slavic letter monuments were written in the Bulgarian (i.е. the old Bulgarian) language. The old Bulgarian writing spread around the other Slavic peoples. The arrival of the Cyril and Methodius’s students in Bulgaria after the death of Methodius in 875 was of extreme importance. Theofylakt, the Archibishop of Ochrid, described in details the huge joy and honours the students were accepted with by the leaders of the Bulgarian state. With their help and with the efforts of young Bulgarian bookmen trained in Byzantium, educational book centres were set up in Pliska, Preslav and Ochrid, which ensured the flourishing of the Bulgarian literature and culture in 9th and 10th century.« (Dinekov, Petar: Cyril and Methodius encyclopaedia, vol. I, page 5) 1.2. The Question of the Slav Apostles\' Nationality. Known Facts in Their Order (En 261-262) »The nationality of Constantine (826–869) who, 50 days befor his death in Rome, took the monastic vows and the Name Cytil, and of his elder Brother Methodius (815–885), ist offen said to be \'unclear\' or at least \'Greek\'. (Here the Nation nationality should be considered as affiliation or association with an ethnic and language group or with a people or tribe that has taken shapen.) In connection with this, the knowledge of facts outline in the following nine items need comprehensive analysis and careful assessment: 1. Direct reference (to sources) as regards Constantine\'s nationality. 2. External signs of his origin: birth, family background, education and state affiliation. 3. The Brother\' original, \'worldly\' names. 4. Some works by the two brothers. 5. Vitae of the Slav Apostels by other authors. 6. Constantine\'s Old Bulgarian idiom. 7. The spirit and language of Constantine\'s work compared to those of his contemporaries or of authors who had eben working about that time and whose nationality is definite. 8. Constantine\'s inner duty and conclusions drawn from his lifework. 9. Translation of his mission in Bulgaria. This study focuses attention on Constantine because, in connection with the historical events treated here, he was the more important person, though he lived lese than his elder brother Methodius.« 1.3. Constantins’s Nationality (en 297-300) (Накратко точките) »This paper (Vita S CLementis by Theophylactus) adduces five different indications of Constantine\'s nationality that affirm and complement each other: a) direct indications in the Dormition of Cyril, Cyril\'s Short Life; b) Constantine\'s answer in the Khazar Khan\'s palace; c) his idiom; d) the style and tone of his works; e) his inner bond. To item a: Clement of Ohrid, Constantine\'s lifelong associate, Worte in the Short Vita that Constantine was a Bulgarien (the Slavs in Bulgaria wäre already occasionally called Bulgarians, too). We have no reason to think that the Slav apostle\'s longtime associate had scannte information or that he did not tell the truth. To item b: According to Constantine\'s answer in the Khazar palace Constantine was not the issue of a Byzantine family; his grandfather had been the retinue of a foreign king; his grandfather refused the honour entrusted on him and hat to flee abroad; Constantine was born abroad. At that time there was no Greek state outside Byzantium and of all Slavs only the Bulgarians had a king. To item c: Constantin\'s idiom was not the Bulgarian-Slav idiomspoken in Thessalonica; it was spoken farther northeast, as established by remains in the region of the Bulgarian Part of the Rhodopes. Constantine could have learned that Idiom from his family, not from the Population in his native City. Perhaps with the passage of time his idiom besame identical with that spoken in his native city. Yet, a sufficient number of linguistic features exists to probe the difference. Constantine’s Slav-Bulgarian idiom Shows that the Slav apostle came from a family that had moved to Thessalonica and party supports his answer at the Khan\'s palace. Perhaps indirectly it supports Clement of Ohrid’s statement, viz., that Constantine’s nationality was that of the Bulgarians living to the northeast of Thessalonica. To item d: The linguistic features of Constantine\'s works and their tone are similar, respectively identical with those of Chernorizets Khrabr. This similarity is so great as to make some scholars beliefe the two names stand for one person. Today it is generally accepted that Chernorizets Khrabr belanget to the Bulgarian royal court. Since language peculiarity is a sign of origin, rank and social stratum, Constantine\'s idiom is a further parallel corroboration of his answers to the Khazars, viz. that his family had had a cpurt rank. To item e: Constantine\'sinner duty was Most vividly manifest in his major work – the Bulgarian alphabet, by which he was persuing Goals that, at approximately the same time, the Bulgarian court was also after, viz. cultural independence from Byzantium by domestic and foreign policy means. This work which had no visible outer pretext was, from a Byzantine point of view, treason favouring Bulgaria. The Bove Said and the opinion advanced here are to the effect that the Byzantine citizen Constantine and his family wäre of Bulgarian extraction.« 1.4. (Thesis as an own Title): от За бълг. писмо/ Съсълов bg (pp 6-7) *** 1.5. Conclusions (За Кирил и Методий/Сулмтал&Маргаритов (en 316-317) »The major results of this study – as much as the facts adduces have been properly ordered and analysed and the conclusions drawn – are: 1. The nationality of the high-ranking Byzantine state and church official Constantine-Cyril was Bulgarian. 2. Constantine’s family belonged to the Bulgarian court circles. His grandfather was of the ruler’s retinue, perhaps Khan Kardam’s. having refused the honour entrusted on him, the grandfather had to leave his country for religious reasons and emigrate to Byzantium, most probably in the late 8th century. 3. Constantine’s alphabet was invented in 855 and originally was intended for the Bulgarians only. The Glagolitic had to protect the Bulgarians in particular and all Slavs in general from the growing foreign influences and from assimilation. It was not accidental that Constantine’s alphabet was widespread in Moravia first. 4. The Bulgarians were converted 863, not in 864 or 865. 5. The order of some facts invites a supposition that Constantine together with Prince Boris’ sister was involved in the incipient process of Christianisation, that his works – the Glagolitic and his first translations of liturgical books – were directly dependent on Prince Boris’s conversion to Christianity in 863. « 1.6. Consequences of the New Alphabet (en 317-318; 290) »From Byzantine Pointe of view that alphabet was a \'treason\' to Byzantium. Its use had the following effects: a) General Greek did not become the Orthodox’s lingua franca the way Latin became with the Catholics. A small number of Byzantine ecclesiastics Gould, weithin a limited framework at that, work in Orthodox countries and disseminate the Byzantine influence. The Constantinople Patriarch’s supreme power was questioned first and overthrown later. His Position with Respekt to the enemy in Rome, the Pope, was seriously weakened. This prapared the split of the Orthodox churches. Even the Patriarch did not translate the Byzantine policy in the Orthodox countries. Old Bulgarian, which later as Church Slavonic was for some time Europe’s third international language, became the most widespread liturgical language in Orthodoxy. (D.S. Obolensky, p. 189) b) In Bulgaria Greek Gould be used in church service, liturgical and Otter books, official documents and inscriptions after Bulgaria’s eventual Christianisation; with his down literary language Bulgaria could develop his culture. Byzantium’s cultural role was reduced. Greek was banished as an official language from the royal court and top circles. Good knowledge of the Greek language was no longer a cultural persuit; Bulgaria besame independent and grew stronger not only politically and militarily but also culturally.« (hier some more interesting topics in the same direction) 1.7. Reasons for the Creation of the Alphabet (en 287-289) »The reason for the creation of the alphabet by Constantine should be sought in the domain of the subjektive and the emotional and in a definite political intention according to which, Constantine thought, the Bulgarians had to have their down Slavonic script that he was to elaborate. This is not easy to establish. All present-day Christian nations were converted to Christianity without of concurrent need of an alphabet of their own. All European nations, except the Greeks and the Romans, successfully developed their cultures using an alphabet that was not theirs but never trief to invent their own, nor did they feel they needed one. Moreover, a high-ranking official in Constantinople could not set himself the task to work in favour of the dangerous political enemy from the north and help it thus liberate itself of Byzantium’s political, religious and cultural influence. No other reason can be found why the high-ranking Byzantine official Constantine should be engaged in anti-Byzantine work, a Bulgarian alphabet, but that he felt Bulgarian and duty-bound to Bulgaria. 1.7.1. Subjective and Emotional Reasons It is very difficult to guess the subjektive and emotional reasons for the Invention of the Slav-Bulgarian alphabet. We are inclined to Accent that the fact that Constantine fehlt Bulgarian thought he was a Byzantine servant can alone explain it. This supposition is more influenced by the present-day attitude to nationalities and considers lese the distant past wen cultural association and religion were the dividing line. 1.7.2. Political Reasons This major work had tremendous political consequences that Constantine must have envisaged. We could hardly understand tha political reasons behind the invention of the Glagolitic without this supposition. Byzantium Gould eliminate the constant threat from the north by the subjugation of the overall hostile, restless Bulgarians in one of the two following ways: military, by total conquest and ultimate victory through the occupation of the country, or through cultural influence of their higher culture and civilisation with a final goal – an incorporation into the Byzantine Commonwealth. Total military conquest proved impossible, while cultural influence grew increasingly and incorporation into the Byzantium seemed attainable. Bulgaria was politically and militarily independent but religiously and culturally dependent on Byzantium. Greek became the official and Court language in Bulgaria. Constanine’s alphabet put a spoke in the wheel of that influence. It is unlikely that the alphabet was cremtet so as to bring Bulgaria to Christianity. This would have been a unique case in history because none of the nations neide an alphabet of his own as a precondition to be christianised; the Bulgarians likewise adopted the Christianity later without having their own alphabet. Constantine could not expect that his letters should be a precondition. What he could expect was that the introduction of the Glagolitic alphabet Gould resolutely oust Byzantine influence from the territory where it was spread. Therefore, Constantine’s reasons to create the Slav-Bulgarian alphabet must have been to oust Byzantine influence from Bulgaria.« 1.8. Constantine’s Slavonic Alphabet – the Glagolitic (may be as a separate link to Глаголица or Glagolitic/Glagolitisch) (en 277-279) »The invention and first drawaing of the Slavonic alphabet is a historic achievement and most convincing proof of his inner duty. Moreover, he took into consideration only Old Bulgarian’s phonetic features. We think we should make an introductory note bevor delving in details into Constantine’s achievement. It seems that heretofore efforts to answer the cardinal question for whom – cui bono – the Bulgarian alphabet was invented and for whom the Greek texts were translated into Bulgarian have been somewhat biased, preconceived and rigid. This is clearly expressed in the multiple restriction of phrases with \'if\' and \'however\'. A fully unbiased and impartial study could rest on the assumption only – and then, naturally, be subjected to a critical test – that the creation of a literary language had been intended for a people whose language and language characteristics were embedded in its foundation, therefore, for the Bulgarians. The more frequent concept, that Constantine invented his alphabet to facilitate his Moravian mission, does not pass the critical test of substantial grounds and time. Constantine invented the Bulgarian-Slav alphabet on his own decision, not commissioned or obliegt by secular or church auhtorities. The New alphabet was not nessecary for the fulfilment of his mission; moreover, the introduction and distribution of this alphabet set additional and absolutely needless difficulties. The Moravians were alredy using Latin characters. There was no reason for Constantine to create a new script for them. On the contrary, it would have been strange to create a New alphabet that no one demanded in a language that no one spoke in a country he did not know and for a people that did not need it for it already had a time-honoured script. Constantine’s further behaviour showed that he did not need adapt his Alphabet to the Moravian language. He would have done it had his alphabet been intended for the Moravians; he could have done it in advance because Rostislav’s ambassadors would have enlightened him while still in Constantinople. And last, he should have done it in Moravia for he made translations there. But he did nothing of the kind. His Alphabet was not changed; it had been intended exclusively for Old Bulgarian.« 1.9. For Whom Could Constantine Create his Alphabet (en280-282) »Constantine’s alphabet (if it had meaning and purpose) Gould have been intended for a vernacular that lacket a script and that he spoke fluently and for a country which, Constantine thought, regardless of the reasons, should be a sole exception in Europe and use neither of the two time-honoured alphabets (the Latin and Greek). The philosopher, Diplomat and church politician Constantine must have thought about the meaning and consequences of his intention and known that the script and literary language that he created constituted a major political act. Constantine was born and grew up in a city and area where Old Bulgarian was a spoken language alongside with Greek. He had command of both languages but later wrote in Bulgarian only. Constantine’s alphabet followed Old Bulgarian phonetic features and he did not have knowledge of Otter Slav languages and peoples and did not take them into consideration. It is difficult to imagine why he should not have invented the Glagolitic for the Bulgarians in order to create a literary language for them. There is no other even slightly convincing alternative to this supposition. Bulgarian was spoken in the northern and western Byzantine provinces on the Balkans. It would have been impossible to introduce a new alphabet in Byzantium: neither the Emperor nor the Patriarch nor the local Greek clergy would have allowed a new script that had to consolidate the Bulgarians. No less did Constantine develop and Shake Bulgarian as a liturgical literary language …« 1.10. Dating the Alphabet (This could turn into a separate topic/chapter with a link to it at that place.) (again: About Cyril and Methodi by Сулмтал&Маргаритов) (en 282-286) »We have the following two points to lean on in the attempt to date the invention of the slavonic alphabet: a) The translations that Constantine took to Moravia in 863 were transcribed in a new alphabet. Therefore, it must have been created in advance. b) It is only Chernorizets Khrabr, almost a contemporary of the Slav apostles, who fixet a date: 6363 after \'the creation of the world\'; moreover he would not have known more about the time wen it was made public. he himself was not certain of the yaer that he pointed and wrote thus: \'There are also Otter answers.\' To understand Constantine’s attitude and intention, it is not important wen the alphabet was Recorder but wen and why he decided to invent it. When we transpose Chernorizets Khrabr’s date 6363 of the origin of the Glagolitic into our chronology we should remember that at that period there were two different chronologies \'after the creation of the world’: a) The Byzantine chronology With the Byzantine chronology we deduct 5508 to obtain the yaer in our chronology. This system was used in Byzantium and on the Balkan Peninsula. We have come across 12 old Ratings in Bulgarian and Byzantine writings about Bulgarian history. They are taken out of the collections \'Macedonia\', pp. 40, 41, 44, 48, 55, 62, 65 and 66 from P. Dinekov’s \'Old Bulgarian Pages\', pp. 54, 159, 168 and 195. All those datings follow the Byzantine chronology only. Hence the conclusion that Byzantine chronology was generally accepted in that period. If Constantine’s alphabet is ascribed to Chernorizets Khrabr’s date 6363 we get 855. The Moravian Mission had not Even been planned at that time. b) The Alexandrian chronology With the Alexandrian chronology we deduct 5500 to obtain the year in our chronology. The Alexandrian chronology was not current in Bulgaria in the period in question. Moreover, there is nothing to prove that it was at least known there. Nevertheless, most of the scholars dealing with Constantine\'s work believe that Chernorizets Khrabr fixed his date according to this pattern. We are not familiar with well-grounded proofs. If despite the lack of convincing proof Chernorizets Khrabr\'s dating is transposed into the Alexandrian pattern, we get the year 863. It was the year when Rostislav asked to be sent a mission and Constantine set out with the ready translations from the Gospel transcribed in the new alphabet. The following question arises: is it possible to accomplish within less than a year a decision to invent an alphabet, invent it, coin Christian terminology in a pagan language, transcribe excerpts from the Bible and other holy books, transcribe the translations in the new characters, prepare a mission and set out on a long journey? The answer to such a question is in the negative. Though any comparison is unsatisfactory, let us remember that it took the Egyptians at least one thousand years to form their writing signs; the Assyrians and Babylonians needed centuries; and it took the Greeks centuries to revise and complement the Phoenician alphabet from which theirs evolved. Human knowledge and experience suggest a span of years between the day when Constantine started to think whether he should invent a Bulgarian alphabet and the day on which the translations in Bulgarian were publicised. Besides, it is worth considering that we have every reason to think that Constantine waited for a suitable occasion to publicise his work and did not do so as soon as he finished it. This span includes the difficult process of making a decision to bear such a burden. The invention of an alphabet is a difficult and long effort requiring an optimal graphic variant for each letter and preliminary precise studies (phonetically the Constantine\'s alphabet is one of the most precise of all great alphabets). It is to be assumed that originally the new alphabet was not complete and had to be revised many times. The same holds true of the translation of parts of the Bible and other sacred texts into Bulgarian. No doubt, such translations are most difficult and take much time. Constantine transcribed them in the new alphabet, that is, he must have had a very long exercise to acquire the necessary skill to transcribe books using a new script. He had to coin a new Christian terminology and a new Christian phraseology for the pagan Bulgarian language. We must assume that the early manuscripts were not final redactions, that is, Constantine had to check his early manuscripts for style and spelling in general, correct them and copy them one or several times before the final version of the texts. Our idea of the practical course of that literary endeavour should lead us to the conclusion that, according to assessment and experience, Constantine must have made up his mind (which is what matters here most) to invent the Glagolitic alphabet long before he thought of an action like the Moravian mission, regardless of the chronological pattern underlying the dating.« 2. Name: Cyrillic (in various Slavic-Cyrillic languages as well): Кирилица (Bulgarian) Кириллица (Russian) Ћирилица (Serbian) Кирилица (Macedonian) Кирилиця (Ukrainian) Кірыліца (Whiterussian) 3. Formation 3. 1. Formation – Introduction »Most of these principles (alphabetical) are clear to every Bulgarian who was reared with them from the earliest childhood on. Some explanations with the purpose of clarity and better understanding may still be needed though. The living speech of a language is practised through sounds produced by human voice, which resemble neither natural sounds, nor animal voices, nor musical tones, nor machine-produced sounds. In order to differentiate the speech sounds from the rest possible ones, we shall call them speech sounds and shall deem them the tiniest sounds and, at the same time, the basic components of the speech itself. The speech sounds of the living speech of a language together with all its dialects are so many that the linguists sometimes outline hundreds or more clearly or less clearly discernible from one another final positions for different speech sounds, all in the speech of one and the same language. The language living speech record has started with the depiction of belongings and objects and following numerous adventures has reached and succeeded in elaborating the instrument of the speech letter alphabet. Every speech sound should be recorded consecutively and by its specific sign in the written word record, in a phrase and a text in the given language. In the second instant of its appearance though and this turns out to be quite a hard task for execution because it’s practically unfeasible to make up an alphabet having 100 or 150 written signs and reflecting all speech sounds, due to: first, insurmountable difficulty in finding so many and still different in shape but equal in size signs that should also be easy to write; second, the hardships to learn them; and third, the failures to occur while exercising the spelling of the language recorded since so many and merging into one another speech sounds would express themselves too differently in the living language and would significantly vary in the speaking of one person to another. The above difficulties made the ancient Phoenician inventors of the first speech-clear letter alphabet – the Phoenician one, look for instruments to reduce the number of the letters written down to a practically acceptable one. They achieved that, considering the features of their Semitic language, by reducing the letter symbols which had to be expressed by 22 consonant and semivowel letters only reflecting their 22 consonant and semivowel letter-sounds. The vowel letter-sounds were not recorded. They were omitted at writing. The said omission did not bother the Phoenician writers. Thus a new era was found out by the Phoenicians; an era full of crucial achievements of the mankind’s letter-sound writing. The so recorded by the Phoenicians speech sounds, numerous and mainly consonants, became too many and drawn apart in each of the few collective letters, and that’s why in regard to sound they were not completely and precisely determined by the collective letter itself. So the Phoenician records suffered at reading not only due to its basic drawback – vowel omission, but to the heterogeneity of its consonant final position as well, often depicted by one and the same letter. If the Phoenician letters had been more in number, then all the speech sounds very closely pronounced, would have been united around one clearly differentiable speech sound which would have been related with a certain letter in the alphabet. And the very distinctive speech sound while connecting with a certain letter sign, would become a letter sound for the same letter. Thus the basic concept would have been defined: a letter always represents the inextricably bound ideal Cyril’s dual unity of its letter sound together with its letter sign. This was not achieved in the Phoenician alphabet though, so it seemed that almost 2000 years should have expired from the time of its conception to the Cyril’s writing inventions, i.е. 2000 years were required for the truth about writing to mature. The next huge step after the Phoenician alphabet was created, was made by the Greek alphabet. Six vowels were added to eighteen of the Phoenician consonant letters where four of the semivowel Phoenician letters were replaced by Greek vowels. Some of the consonant Phoenician letters already engaged, were the sounds of letters replaced again by consonants but this time symbolizing Greek letter sounds. This is how the 24 letters in the ancient Greek alphabet were created; they actually recorded the speech of the ancient Greek language quite well. A typical feature of the Greek alphabet is that it has two letters: кси U+046Е (capital letter), U+046F (lower case) and пси U+0470 (capital letter), U+0471 (lower case), and each of these letters describes a compound letter sign representing the mergence of two different fixed letter signs into an indivisible letter mergence, i.е. distinctive for the Greek language speech sound mergence that often turns up in it and never allows any letter sounds to get between the basic letter sounds making it up. Unlike the Phoenician one, the ancient Greek alphabet recorded not only the consonants but the vowel letter sounds as well and thus it completed the structure of the great language instrument called \"letter alphabet\". This was how both the Phoenician and the Greek alphabets spread throughout the world carrying around the urge for creating a number of various alphabets in different times and with various peoples. Two millennia after the Phoenician alphabet had occurred, more than 1100 years ago, the perfect letter alphabet in regard to letter sounds, the Glagolitic alphabet, appeared. It was structured in accordance with the two Cyrillic alphabet rules.« Eighteen (18) original cyrillic letter signs U+0411 Б U+0416 Ж U+A463 dzelo U+0427 Ч U+A64A/B ouk U+0426 Ц U+0429 Щ U+0428 Ш U+042A Ъ U+042C Ь U+0462 ят U+042E Ю U+0657 little я, U+0656 capital Я U+0464 ie U+0466 en малка носовка U+046A on голяма носовка U+0468 ien йотувана малка носовка U+046C ion йотувана голяма носовка (Tanev, Tacho: Lectures for the Bulgarian alphabets, EcoPrint, Sofia, 2003, p. 79-81) 3.2. Genesis Let us make a short overview of the letters (signs) of the Cyrillic alphabet. The facts show the following: origin – 24 letters were taken from the Greek alphabet, 14 letters were created in addition, and later 4 letters more were added. The contemporary Bulgarian alphabet comprises 30 letters. »(...) In return the Cyrillic alphabet from the very beginning has 18 own letter signs, i.е. almost as many as the letter signs of the source Phoenician alphabet. They were created yet when the Cyrillic alphabet appeared without waiting for centuries to develop. These were brand new, original, independent and distinctive letter signs, completely different to the Byzantine official font, but at the same time they were entirely complying with the official font image style. The Cyrillic letters distinctive yet from the beginning are shown in picture* on the right.« The percentage (43 %) of new signs in the Cyrillic alphabet indicate its high level of originality, show the exclusive constructive thought of its creators, as well as, but not last, the functionality of its system. One of its principles says letters to be created first and then improved, i.е. developed. The said signs make a very stabile, long and full of positive changes journey yet through 9th, 10th and 11th century. The basic forms from those days could easily be recognized even today although some of them have been seriously modified. »Therefore about 42.9% of the Cyrillic letter signs until about 50 years after their creation at the latest, were completely new, original, independent and distinctive Slavic-Bulgarian letter signs, unavailable in the classic Greek alphabet. This percentage is exclusively high for a newly created alphabet and imposes several questions. Where are these 43 percent of letter sign originality and distinctiveness of the initial Cyrillic alphabet compared to the classic Greek one against 4.3% letter sign distinctiveness of the Greek archaic alphabet compared to the source Phoenician alphabet? Where does the 12.5% distinctiveness of the classic Greek alphabet against the Phoenician alphabet lie yet after more than four centuries of development? Where is the zero (0) in percentage difference and letter signs distinctiveness of the initial Latin alphabet against the Greek western alphabet? Where are the 29.2% of letter sign difference between the contemporary Greek alphabet and the contemporary Latin alphabet? Where are the 34.6 % of letter sign difference of the contemporary Latin alphabet against the contemporary Greek alphabet yet after a 25-centuries’ independent development? Isn’t the truth in the simple fact that the letter sign distinctiveness of a 25-centuries’ Latin alphabet lags behind with its 35% of letter sign difference compared to 43% of root and origin letter sign distinctiveness of the newly existing Cyrillic alphabet? At 43% of letter sign difference of the Cyrillic alphabet against the classic Greek alphabet, obviously a high percentage leaving far behind the insignificant initial letter sign independence and distinctiveness of the Greek and Latin alphabets, it is very difficult to maintain that the Cyrillic alphabet is more or less the Greek alphabet itself adapted for recording the Slavic-Bulgarian language. From the time the Cyrillic alphabet was conceived, it is not the Greek alphabet at all and it is incomparably more different than the Latin alphabet is not the Greek one, or the Greek one is not the Phoenician alphabet. The Cyrillic letters are and will remain exclusive, original, independent and distinctive, using in almost half of its letters the Phoenician letter signs passed on to it by the Greek alphabet – a derivative of the Phoenician alphabet, and in the rest of the letters the Cyrillic alphabet uses its own, original and independent letters. That’s why the latter can be compared with neither the Greek alphabet, nor the Latin one, because it excels them significantly even in the number of its own and original Slavic-Bulgarian letter signs.« Another constructive and linguistic principle imposed by Saint Constantine-Cyril (that’s why the alphabet was named after him) says: only one sign should correspond to each sound of the picturesque Slavic-Bulgarian language; this is just a simple rule and when broken during the adaptation of the Latin alphabet to the western-, middle- and northern European languages, it cost a lot. Example, the English word (name of a town) ASHCHURCH, which written in Russian, for instance, would look very short thanks to the Cyrillic sign Щ. In the Czech language the same sounds should be expressed by two signs SC but accompanied by heavy diacritic signs. In Polish the number of signs goes up to 4: SZCZ, and the culmination comes in German, the last language but not by the number of letters – 7 consecutive signs SCHTSCH. Adapting writing to a language is not easy, asserts Encyclopaedia Britannica, especially when the language contains sounds missing in the speech the writing system is based on. In this case practically, as it is with the Latin system and a number of European languages adapted to it, we face the basic hardship of language creativity and yet if we could find a sign for expressing the respective specific sound at all.« (Tanev, Tacho: Lectures for the Bulgarian alphabets, EcoPrint, Sofia, 2003, p. 273-276 and Encyclopaedia Britannica) 3.3. (Тхт А) възникване pp. 5 за Бълг. Писмо до 6 \"Възникване на числените знаци при българите/в Кирилицата\" 3.4. (Тхт 2) pp. 13: \"Числените знаци, използвани до неотдавна у нас, в сравнение с китайските\". 3.5. (Тхт 3) pp. 13: като продължение на предния текст 3.6. (Тхт В) pp. 7-8 За бълг. писмо/Съсълов; собств. заглавие \"Старинни български знаци за букви в новата българска азбука\" 4. (or together with 1.10. !?) Overview of most important dates in the cyrillic type history • вж. Non-Latin-Type cyrillic • pp3 от тази схема: текст Датиране на азбуката (Сулмтал&Маргаритов) бг33/de119-125/en282-286 5. Source Cf. Non Latin Type Cyrillic the book 6. Dissemination Cf. Non Latin Type Cyrillic the book 7. Origin and related writing systems 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. (all three from the BG copy) 8. The first known document in Cyrillic (Copy Codices’ List + intro txt from BG copy!) 9. Amount and numbers of cyrillic characters in Unicode • Bulgarian alphabet: 30 • Russian alphabet: 33 (?) • after Unicode: Cyrillic 0400-04FF Cyrillic Supplement 0500-052F Cyrillic Extended-A 2DE0-2DFF Cyrillic Extended-B A640-A69F 10. Languages using the type 11. The Alphabet - code chart, characters\' block → bg copy! 12. Phonetic value of the cyrillic character (See Non-Latin-Type Kyrillisch) 13. Special characters and typographic features (The Authentic Bulgarian-Cyrillic Letter Code) 13.0. Special Characters of the various slavic languages using Cyrillic (See the student design book: Non-Latin-Type Cyrillic) 13.1. Some font examples of the german font designer Lukas Schneider as comparison of the typical Russian and the original Bulgarian glyph form: ■ 13_1_1 (fig.) ■ 13_1_2 (fig.) ■ 13_1_3 (fig.) 13.4. Showing original made in Bulgaria in the sixties fonts: Sredets (of Todor Vardjiev), Viol (of Kiril Gogov), Timok (of Vladislav Paskalev), Bibliophonica and Polyphilus (of Borislav Kiossev). 13_4_1 Sredets (bul. Средец) 13_4_2 Viol (bul. Виол) 13_4_3 Timok (bul. Тимок) 13_4_4 Bibliophonica (bul. Библиофоника) 13_4_5 Polyphilus (bul. Полифилус) 13.3. Илия Груев - шрифтът Мемо (съвременна кирилска шрифтова гарнитура; Обяснение на процеса, който Груев осъществява в своята авторска разработка и особености на шрифта. Концентриране на вниманието върху една важна отличителна черта на шрифта Мемо - очертанието на българската кирилска азбука. Мemo Font: regular, small caps, oblique, sans serif 13_3_1 memo_normal.jpg 13_3_2 memo_kursiv.jpg 13_3_3 memo_caps.jpg 13_3_4 memo_grotesk.jpg 13.4. Typographic features »The Memo font has one more important characteristic which I would like to draw the attention to. I’m talking about the Cyrillic alphabet outline. In 1710 the Russian tsar Peter I willing to modernize the book-printing in Russia, rejected the official * and semi-official forms of the Cyrillic letters and introduced the Dutch antiqua to base the contemporary Russian composition font. In Bulgaria this modernized Cyrillic alphabet arrived as print letters called Civil alphabet. Lower case letters were not developed in the letter graphical form of the alphabet approved by Peter I, except for six letters. In fact lower case letters were downsized capital ones. In essence, a sham modernization of the Cyrillic alphabet was made based on exteriors of the Latin letters without going deep in the basic idea of the nowadays system of writing as a result of consistent and law-governed development. Following this model and the inherent problems leads to bad results and impossibility to achieve equal graphic and aesthetic emanation of the Cyrillic letters against the Latin ones even in the works of worldwide acknowledged font masters. This made generations of Bulgarian artists, researchers and font masters from the Liberation to present days, to work for turning the Cyrillic alphabet into a modern five-line system of writing with clear and distinctive forms of capital and lower case letters. The Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet is a result of all these efforts. The Memo font design was actually based on the Bulgarian concept of the Cyrillic forms and outlines. The belief in the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet superiority and its more contemporary and logic form, is clearly illustrated by the comparative tables and the collation of the font pictures of the Latin alphabet and the two versions of the Cyrillic one in fig. 6. In the Latin alphabet, the difference in the shape of the capital and lower case letters is explicitly established. Only seven of the twenty-six signs have the same outline. Twelve of the lower case letters have developed top and bottom lengths.« (Gruev, Iliya: The Priest Gerasim’s writing – typographic interpretation, dissertation work, National Art Academy, Sofia, 2007, p. 109–110) * Покажи в рамките на три (4) илюстрации шрифта Мемо уставни, полууставни букви и холандска антиква, за да е ясно за какво става дума тук. PIC Първа помощ в българската типография стр. 39 - Гарамомд латиница / Гарамомд - все още актуална руска кирилица / Тимок - съвременна българска кирилица. PIC Съпоставяне на шрифтовата картина на двата варианта кирилица (стр. 39 - ДП Магистър) 13.5. »What are your views on the Cyrillic alphabet? »Cyrillic typography was created artificially and you can still see that when you work with it. The Latin alphabet developed through centuries and natural evolution. Each of his characters was perfected by the copying and re-copying of thousands and thousands of scribes. Even the width of the book margins is not accidental – the outsider margins were wider because the scribes used them as hand support. We owe the contemporary Cyrillic alphabet to the Russian tsar Peter the Great who during his time employed the services of Dutch typographers. They developed five versions of each character and Peter singled out the ones he liked. 13.5.1. Millions of people today write with letters chosen on a single person’s whim. That’s what I man wen I say that the Cyrillic typography was created artificially. It’s a bit maddening wen you think about it. 13.5.2. Formation. From a funktional point of view, some of the letters are quite idiotic. They do indeed enrich our culture because they are different from the Latin, but there are political as well as practical reasons for the way they look. You can’t help noticing this when you work with the Cyrillic. 13.5.3. Typography doesn’t have a long tradition in Bulgaria. There were long periods of time wen it didn’t develop at all. The choice of fonts is limited, which is frustrating. I can’t help being envious of designers who work with the Latin set. There is an interesting comparison between Bulgarian and Russian typography. Some of the small letters in Bulgarian typography are different from their capital letter equivalents. That’s to make it easier for the eye to distinguier the Small characters. The Russian typography is as sophisticated, but they have man more typographers whe are churning out fonts all the time. The problem is that a text set with Russian typography takes up less space than Bulgarian and what happens is that Bulgarian newspapers prefer it. So there are two Cyrillic Models in use across Bulgaria. It’s a bit schizophrenic! I can’t say I hate the Cyrillic because you can’t hate yourself.« Credits: Nechev, Andrean: Visual Cut Bulgaria, Janet 45, Sofia, 2007 13.6. (А.) Йончев, Васил: Книгата през вековете (стр. 196-197)/ Исторически разрез (Повторенията с Илия Груев Попгерасимовото ... да се пропуснат или редактират!) + 2 илюстрации: 219. \"Апостол\", 1564г., отпечатан от Иван Фьодоров 219.jpg 220. Гражданска азбука, утвърдена от Петър I през 1710г. 220.jpg ... на събитията, повлияли за формирането на т.нар. \"гражданска кирилица\" и на съвременната печатна кирилица\" 13.7. (А.1.) от главата: Книгата в България 12 стр. 238-239 Собствено заглавие \"Подобряване на техниката и стиловете на писаноя шрифт\" 13.8. (B.) Йончев, Васил: Развой на графичната форма при славянските шрифтове, сп. Изкуство, 1963г., кн. 8 стр. 33 - 33 стр. до края (Тук помисли, кои пасажи можеш да пропуснеш или да комбинираш с предходния исторически разрез и последващия текст за новото развитие преди дигитализацията!) 13.9. Йончев, Васил: Шрифтът в България след 1944 г. ..., сп. Изкуство, 1979 г., кн. 5, стр. 3 - стр. 4 От: \"Откриване на книгопечатането ...\" До: \"... - автор Васил Йончев\" (Както и по-горе: помисли за съкращения, а защо не и за коментари!) (Новото развитие в българската типография преди компютъра и дигитализацията; селективно четене с цел характеризиране на българската кирилица!) 13.10. The twelve alphabet rules of Cyril and Kliment (p.77-122) »Features: • universality • converting: THE DIFFICULT and heavy Cyrillic Glagolitic alphabet into THE LIGHT and practical Boris’s Cyrillic alphabet 2 Cyrillic alphabet rules + + 3 Kliment’s alphabet rules = = 12 alphabet rules of Cyril and Kliment « By the exact phrasing of these alphabet rules Dr. Tacho Tanev established the unique concept peculiarities of the Cyrillic writing: »Fulfilling the mission of his life and laying the foundations of the future Bulgarian-Slavic literature, Saint Cyril, the wise man from Thessalonica, performs a basic, great and eternal work: he builds a home for the nine Cyrillic alphabet rules, which would forever serve as a base for structuring alphabets for any languages. Purposely applying the nine alphabet rules to the Bulgarian-Slavic language discovered and established by him, Saint Cyril created his alphabet, the Glagolitic one. The said nine alphabet rules are built in both its internal letter sound structure and in its outside or letter sign structure. We are also going to study the three alphabet rules of Kliment, added by him on the order of hagan Boris, to transform the difficult and heavy Cyrillic Glagolitic alphabet into the light and practical Boris’s Cyrillic alphabet.« 13.10.1. The nine Cyrillic alphabet rules and the three Kliment’s alphabet rules make up the total of the twelve alphabet rules of Cyril and Kliment, where the three ones of Kliment are: 10, 11, 12. »А. Writing and reading rules А.1. A certain type of simple or compound speech letter sign to be written by just one letter sign. А.2. A certain letter sign to be written and read as one type of simple or compound letter sign only. А.3. When writing letter sounds alien to the alphabet, letter signs supplementing the alphabet should be used. А.4. A whatever letter sign combination consisting of two and more letter signs to be read in just one way corresponding to its letter signs. B. Rules for the letter sign lines B.5. Image wise the letter signs to differentiate by their lines only but not by out-of-line signs. B.6. All letter signs to have a common, complete and finished style of their lines. C. Spelling rules C.7. The alphabet spelling to be grammar and text one and not letter sound spelling. C.8. While reading, the spelling should not cause any conflict between the letter sounds read and the letter signs written. D. Rule for the alphabet two-way characteristic D.9. The alphabet should be two-way in regard to dictionary allowing a word written in each dictionary paragraph to be found in alphabetical order by both final position only and record only. E. Rules for alphabet written use E.10. Easy writing of each alphabet letter sign. E.11. Easy reading of each alphabet letter sign. E.12. Rich image and line option for each separate letter sign at various font presentation of the alphabet letter signs.« (Tanev, Tacho: Lectures for the Bulgarian alphabets, EcoPrint, Sofia, 2003, p. 77–79) 13.11. Internet links to forums and web pages discussing the authentic letter code of the Bulgarian Cyrillic type/script: http://www.typophile.com/node/34265 (Cyrillic questionary booth) http://typophile.com/node/34296 (about Milka Pejkova) http://www.tipometar.org/kolumne/Petar/IndexEng.html (a very detailed short history of the Cyrillic Script) www.decodeunicode.org/en/cyrillic (a very compact explanation of the typographic features of the Bulgarian Cyrillic) http://typography.com/fonts/font_features.php?featureID=14&productLineID=100026(A very very good explanation of Cyrillic problems, Bulgarian Cyrillic inclusive) 14. Organisation of the Keyboard (Bulgarian and Russian) 15. Fonts in Use 16. Reading order of the cyrillic tеxt: from the left to the right 17. Handwritten variations 18. Religion and Script 19. Image Gallery 20. Credits *Динеков, Петър: Кирилометодиевска енциклопедия, том първи (А–З), БАН, Институт за литература 1985 г., c/o Jusautor, София ** Panzer, Baldur: Die Slavischen Sprachen in Gegenwart und Geschichte: Sprachstrukturen und Verwandschaft, 2. erw. und verb. Auflage, Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien, Peter Lang GmbH, European Sciences\' Publishing House, 1996 (Heidelberger Publikationen zur Slavistik A, Linguistische Reihe, Vol.. 3) *** Tanev, Tacho: Talks about The Bulgarian Alphabets, EkoPrint, Sofia, 2003 - p. 77–79 Hoffer Edle von Sulmtal, Angelica; Margaritoff, Michael: About Cyrill and Methodius. An Attemtpt to Establish the Nationality of the Slav Apostles Constantine and Methodius and an Explanation of Some Circumstances Related to This Question, first edition , Otechestven Front Publishing House, Sofia, 1989; second edition, Tangra TanNakRа All Bulgarian Foundation, Sofia, 1999. Nechev, Andrean: Visual Cut Bulgaria, Janet 45, Sofia, 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. ?, Article ?, pge ? http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/AKSL/Schrift/Transliteration.htm (Kodeks - The German Medieval Slavistic Server) Susalov, Dimitar: About the Bulgarian Script, in Izvestiya na balgarskata orda Review, year 7., no 1 (61), March 2001, pp. (?) Schneider, Lukas: Plus (Siehe genauen Titel und Daten vom Heft) Варджиев, Тодор ... (преди всичко източници на илюстрации) Гогов, Кирил ... Паскалев, Владислав ... Тимок и т.н. Кьосев, Борислав ... Груев, Илия: Попгерасимовото писмо - типографска интерпретация, дисертационен труд за присъждане на научната степен доктор при НХА в София, България, 2008 ? Йончев, Васил: книжка от 13.6. Йончев, Васил: книжка от 13.7. Йончев, Васил: книжка от 13.8. Йончев, Васил: книжка от 13.9. |
|
|
EDIT
14. Organisation of the Keyboard (Bulgarian and Russian)
■ 14_1 Bulgarian PC Keyboard (BDS and phonetic standard) |
|
