4 ms·

Really fun! I think I understand Polish more now. I like that the author chose a version of Church Slavonic letters like Ѧ Ѫ Ѩ Ѭ instead of making up new ones.

Really fun! I think I understand Polish more now. I like that the author chose a version of Church Slavonic letters like Ѧ Ѫ Ѩ Ѭ instead of making up new ones. This attempt also seems to try to build etymological bridges to other Slavic languages (mostly Russian, though) like for example spelling rzeki as реки, rather the more phonological жеки. I would prefer the Ukrainian or Belarussian versions of Cyrillic were used as a model, as they are closer to Polish (with the exception of the palatalisation of е, the norm in both Polish and Russian and almost rare in Ukrainian).

acqq 6y ago
> spelling rzeki as реки, rather the more phonological жеки. I'm disappointed if it's not phonological, if it were, I believe that would be the biggest advantage of the whole approach. Were the authors aware of these issues? Was it really to "build the bridges" or did they simply miss some nuances while making the examples? Edit: Now I'm trying to check and I find on the page "р̌еки" with the mark, that actually keeps the phonological information, if I understand. So it seems it's not "реки." Edit2: I'm discovering that the default rendering of the page as I saw it didn't show much of the text (!) -- I had to turn on the "reader's mode" -- so the р̌ is from the older attempt, not from the new one presented on the page. So now I see: "I wouldn't propose transcribing it to ж, for the same etymological reasons: rz comes from softened r, while ż comes from softened g. The fact that it sounds very different does not change that fact. Therefore, we simply use рь (and not this weird creation from the 19th century, р̌)." I really like щ instead of szcz etc. Now I understand how "user unfriendly" the Latin representation of Polish is (for somebody not knowing the expected pronunciations).
- dimitar 6y ago
  Yes, реки was intentional. You can see the word in the ballad at the bottom of the page. To transcribe using another alphabet is done often when teaching and it is I guess not that interesting to the author. But trying to answer the question of what an honest effort to adopt Cyrilic sometime in the past would look like is pretty fun.
  - acqq 6y ago
    Reading the explanation, the idea in реки is that the information about the "softening" is contained in the е that follows. So it's replaces szcz-like rules with other rules, which admittedly follow the logic of some existing rules in some languages, but which makes the result still less directly "phonological" than some other approaches could be. At least the author admits it's "primarily a thought experiment". Interesting anyway.

acqq 6y ago

> spelling rzeki as реки, rather the more phonological жеки. I'm disappointed if it's not phonological, if it were, I believe that would be the biggest advantage of the whole approach. Were the authors aware of these issues? Was it really to "build the bridges" or did they simply miss some nuances while making the examples? Edit: Now I'm trying to check and I find on the page "р̌еки" with the mark, that actually keeps the phonological information, if I understand. So it seems it's not "реки." Edit2: I'm discovering that the default rendering of the page as I saw it didn't show much of the text (!) -- I had to turn on the "reader's mode" -- so the р̌ is from the older attempt, not from the new one presented on the page. So now I see: "I wouldn't propose transcribing it to ж, for the same etymological reasons: rz comes from softened r, while ż comes from softened g. The fact that it sounds very different does not change that fact. Therefore, we simply use рь (and not this weird creation from the 19th century, р̌)." I really like щ instead of szcz etc. Now I understand how "user unfriendly" the Latin representation of Polish is (for somebody not knowing the expected pronunciations).

dimitar 6y ago
Yes, реки was intentional. You can see the word in the ballad at the bottom of the page. To transcribe using another alphabet is done often when teaching and it is I guess not that interesting to the author. But trying to answer the question of what an honest effort to adopt Cyrilic sometime in the past would look like is pretty fun.
- acqq 6y ago
  Reading the explanation, the idea in реки is that the information about the "softening" is contained in the е that follows. So it's replaces szcz-like rules with other rules, which admittedly follow the logic of some existing rules in some languages, but which makes the result still less directly "phonological" than some other approaches could be. At least the author admits it's "primarily a thought experiment". Interesting anyway.