Jump to content

Talk:Georgian scripts/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

fi

We list ჶ (fi) in the additional-letter section, presumably for Laz, but then in the Unicode table shade it as obsolete. Which is it? Another letter that's obsolete in Georgian is used in other languages, but it's still in the obsolete section. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It never was used in Georgian. It was used in Ossetian or Abkhaz in the past and now in Laz as far as I know. But "fi" is definitely an additional letter and not the obsolete one for Georgian. Jaqeli (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

What is "formally unicameral" supposed to mean? Also, what goes in the lead should be covered in the body. — Lfdder (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Was mixed supposed to imply that another script's used for uppercase? — Lfdder (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It means there are no "A a", "B b" etc. No little a's and b's or bigger A's or B's. Mixing refers to decoration purposes only, though the Georgian church uses 3 of them together, but mostly the first two scripts. Jaqeli (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what unicameral means, I meant 'formally'. — Lfdder (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Mostly decor and church. Georgian language does not recognize small and big letters though we can mix letters together if we want to. That's why it's written formally. Jaqeli (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
But what does mixing scripts have to do with it? Is one script thought to be in capitals and the other lowercase? — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, there is no uppercase and lowercase. There is and was only the size of the letter for decoration effect. Jaqeli (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Example for you:

ოვლი (tovli) meaning snow. თ (t) just has the bigger size for decoration purposes. Jaqeli (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Right then. — Lfdder (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: "historically related scripts" is confusing. And adding the "Khutsuri" name is not needed up there. Its alternative names are in their own sections. Jaqeli (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You said it's confusing before, but how? It seems clear enough to me, at least for the lead.
I added Khutsuri to the text of the lead because it's listed in the info box in the lead. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be confusing for a reader. It should state clearly whose scripts are those three. As for Khutsuri, not needed at all in the lead. Their alternative names are in their own sections, and also Khutsuri is not a name of one script but the combination of Asomtavruli+Nuskhuri=Khutsuri. Jaqeli (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
We just said they're Georgian? How could the reader possibly be confused?
Also, we do not repeat descriptive titles in bold in the lead. Some editors twist the text to fit in the title, thinking they're supposed to, but it's bad style.
We give that definition of Khutsuri at Georgian alphabet, but not here. That should be clarified. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misunderstood. I'd always thought that the scripts derived from each other. Since they don't, I agree with you about the wording. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If Asomtavruli and Nuskhuli had different origins, where did Mkhedruli come from? Was it a cursive derivation of one of the others? — kwami (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is the scripts do at some level 'derive from each other' (they have the same letter names/sounds values and order and so on), though the shapes of the letters themselves may have different origins. (Here's Hewitt saying the scripts 'developed' or 'evolved' from one another.) At any rate, they are 'historically related scripts'. But that doesn't say much. — Lfdder (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why have Machavariani and Pataridze been who tagged? — Lfdder (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I should have just deleted their names. — kwami (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted text

Removed the following as obvious nonsense:

Nuskhuri letters may have derived from the northern Arsacid variant of the Pahlavi script, which itself derived from Aramaic, although the direction of writing, the use of separate letters for vowel sounds, the numerical values assigned to the letters, and the order of the letters all point to significant Greek influence. However, the Georgian linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon the Aramaic alphabet.[1]
  1. ^ თ. გამყრელიძე, წერის ანბანური სისტემა და ძველი ქართული დამწერლობა, თბილისი, 1990

Maybe they meant Georgian, but Nuskhuri is transparently derived from Asomtavruli. The relationship is as close as classical Latin and medieval miniscules. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You are seriously damaging the content right now. All of the material I've been working on several months are perfectly sourced and you're just removing the important details, citations and sources. I suggest you stop doing that and stop messing the content around. Jaqeli (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It fails the bullshit test. Obvious bullshit has no place in an encyclopedia, unless it's a notable POV and we present it as bullshit. BTW, I've greatly improved several passages that were barely intelligible. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What is bullshit? You are removing the dates, and important details sourced in the sections of each script. You've destroyed the body and content and its important sections of Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri. Everything is perfectly sourced and you're tagging anyways. Stop what you're doing as you're doing no good for the article right now. Jaqeli (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's BS to say Nuskhuri does not come from Asomtavruli, when it obviously does. There are also plenty of sources which state the obvious.
If I removed something important, it was because I couldn't understand it. Can you give examples?
The article is in horrible shape, and does not deserve to be listed as GA. I'm trying to bring it up to GA standards. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Please just stop and don't make it in a rush. What exactly are you concerned about? And in which section you see a problem? Jaqeli (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking it in a rush. I've been making incremental improvements for months, I just haven't visited for a while. As for which sections I see a problem in, to varying degrees pretty much everything I haven't rewritten. I'm not trying to drastically change the article, just to reword it to be comprehensible, and remove contradictions and empty verbiage. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I will source the development phases of Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. They are connected and they were developed out from each other and I will source it. Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli content is perfectly sourced and I cannot see there any horrible shape honestly. You did great work on the summary section. As for additional and obsolete letters please if you will change those sections bring sources for those letters you'll add where and how they are used. Jaqeli (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You criticized me for saying the scripts were developed from each other, but now you're saying the same thing. If it's "perfectly sourced" that they were *not* developed from each other, why would you now say they were? — kwami (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: When did I say that? Jaqeli (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is about! I removed the claim that Nusxuri did not derive from Asomtavruli, saying it failed the bullshit test. You objected that I was "ruining" the article. Yet now you appear to agree with me. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No, I was reffering to your multiple edits that was indeed damaging the body and content of many sections not just Nuskhuri. Anyways, I've sourced it in the lead that those three scripts are developed from each other. Jaqeli (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you could show me where I've damaged the article, we'd have something to talk about. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You have now restored material which you admit is false, and deleted tags for clarification. That is disruptive and close to vandalism. I've put in quite a bit of time removing the bullshit, gobbledegook, and other cruft from this embarrassment of an article. Rather than edit warring with you, I have tagged it as disputed; if you do not try editing constructively, I'll ask that the article be reevaluated to strip it of its GA status, which is clearly unwarranted in its current state. — kwami (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Vandalism? What are you talking about? I don't get what is your problem. Jaqeli (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is you screwing up the article. This is why I got so frustrated with you last time: You contradicting yourself with every other comment, removing material you agree is correct, and adding material you agree is incorrect, or at least you seem to.
You said that the scripts derive from one another. Now you've added sources for that, at the same time saying that they do not derive from one another. Don't you see the incoherence of that? — kwami (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And why have my changes to the infobox been reverted? — Lfdder (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: What are you talking about? I've added the sources that support the idea that all 3 scripts were derived from each other. Where did I vandalise anything? Jaqeli (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And then you said they are not derived from one another. And removed tags for clarification of incomprehensible wording. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Are you joking me right now? I haven't said anything like that. @Lfdder: What was in the infobox? Jaqeli (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you read what you write? Because you appear to be unaware of what you're saying. This is why in the past it was impossible to have a constructive conversation with you. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Now it seems you're not joking. Show me where I've said they don't derive from each other. Just show me and link it. Jaqeli (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Here. Of course I'm not joking. Why would you think I was? And stop removing the disputed tag, or I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: [1] — Lfdder (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've asked you to show me where I actually SAID that those scripts were not derived from each other. And what are you actually doing? What is exactly disputed? Everything is sourced and still tag it with that dispute tag? I cannot follow your rationals. What are you doing can you please tell us? Jaqeli (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You said,
"The forms of Nuskhuri letters may have been derived from the northern Arsacid variant of the Pahlavi script, which itself was derived from the older Aramaic, although the direction of writing which is left to right, the use of separate symbols for the vowel sounds, the numerical values assigned to the letters in earlier times, and the order of the letters all point to significant Greek influence on the script. However, the Georgian linguist Tamaz Gamkrelidze argues that the forms of the letters are freely invented in imitation of the Greek model rather than directly based upon earlier forms of the Aramaic alphabet."
That is completely at odds with your claim that it derives from Asomtavruli.
And now we're back exactly to where we're started, with the passage I started this section with. Pages of discussion, and you haven't even understood the reason for the discussion. — kwami (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I was not referring to that statement. When I said that your edits were damaging the content and the body I meant your multiple edits. I just posted my concern under that section. If I was refering to that Pahlavi thing I would mention it at least. Jaqeli (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed that text from the Nuskhuri section. Was that the one you tagged the whole article with disputed tag? Jaqeli (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That was the most egregious thing, but there were many small corrections that you reverted without giving any reason. — kwami (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: 430 AD is a date for a first found Georgian inscription and so far it is considered the oldest. Jaqeli (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The field is 'time period'. What is the reason for having the 'date for a first found Georgian inscription'? — Lfdder (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Time period needs a defined date since when the script was used. What if it was used in 300s or maybe in BC's we don't know yet so thus 430 - present. Jaqeli (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwami

@Kwamikagami: Stop messing and damaging the content and body around. This is encyclopedia and stop making your own interpretations of the wording. I mean especially the Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri sections. You're making your own interpretations with the words there and they are wrong. Everything there is sourced and is written exactly what the sources are saying and stop putting there your own thoughts please. You're tagging and messing everything around in those two sections where every sentence there have their own sources. Just stop ruining the text around. Jaqeli (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli, I welcome any *constructive* edits you make. But it's annoying when you repeatedly trash the writing because you can't be bothered to separate improvements from garbage. You've been blocked for this kind of disruptive behaviour before, and I defended you, even though working with you is extremely frustrating, because I know you mean well, but it's not worth having you around if you continue to behave like this.
Don't revert obvious improvements. If I've removed something we should keep, could you tell me what it is? Some of the things I removed because I simply couldn't understand them. Putting incomprehensible gobbledegook back in the article does not make it the Good Article you want it to be. Sometimes I didn't remove it, but tagged it for clarity. The solution is to word it more clearly, not to delete the tags. Repeatedly deleting such tags will get you blocked, and this time I won't defend you.
My "interpretations" of the wording, and Lfdder's, are called "English". Your command of the language is not great enough for you to judge what is good English and what is incomprehensible. That's a big part of the problem. Please stop reverting improvements to the writing. I've also corrected links. The Aramaic alphabet, for example, should link to the Aramaic alphabet, not to Semitic languages. Can you point out any changes I made that compromised the facts or otherwise damaged the article? If you don't specify what you're objecting to, I can't understand what you mean.
So, instead of throwing out the good with the bad, why don't you start with the cleaned-up article, and add those things you find it to be missing, or correct actual errors? — kwami (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Now this is something we can work with! — kwami (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Except you're still deleting tags for verification. When I tag something "what?", that means it makes no sense. Don't remove the tags unless you actually explain what it means. For example, we say the letters "are placed in a two-linear system". Gibberish: it means nothing. You have a choice: We can leave the tag, we can word it in a way that's comprehensible, or we can delete it altogether. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've made some corrections. Now it is clean, clear and better than it was. Jaqeli (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Good! Now we're getting somewhere.
A few points: The word "graphics" does not even appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, which has 400,000 words, so should probably be avoided. I couldn't tell you what it means. Those sections are dealing with the form of the scripts, so "form" would be a better word. (There may be others, but that's the best that comes to mind.)
Asomtavruli is not used for "stone carving". "Carving" has nothing to do with writing. It's stone engraving. True, we don't have an article on that, but that's beside the point. (If you want, you can always upload an image of modern Asomtavruli used in engraving.)
You keep saying "it didn't catch on and failed to gain popularity". The two phrases mean the same thing, and it sounds silly to say them both – as if we think the reader is too stupid to understand.
I keep tagging "Khutsuri" for a definition/translation, and you keep deleting the tag. Why not just give the meaning? Or shall I add "(of unknown meaning)"?
I keep adding synonyms, like K'utxovani for Nukhuri, and you keep deleting them. We're an encyclopedia. People use us as a reference. Since the "rounded" and "angular" names are used in the English literature, we should include them here.
Does that make sense? — kwami (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Nuskhuri 'form' section, I added some more clarification tags, for things I couldn't understand when I tried copy editing. If I can't understand it, knowing a little bit about these scripts, then our average reader probably won't be able to understand it either. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Kutkhovani is not used for Nuskhuri and honestly never heard or read about it anywhere. As for Khutsuri do you just want its translation? It literally means "clerical". Jaqeli (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I wanted.
I came across those synonyms just the other day, and I've seen them before. Maybe they're spurious? Someone mistook a description for a name, and the misinformation has been copied from one source to another? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No idea, never heard that name describing Nuskhuri. Jaqeli (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since they're not actually used in Georgian, and given that every source I've seen them in has explained them as alt names for Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri, I agree there's little point in adding them to the article. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
We say Nuskhuri letters are written with a single line, but they quite obviously are not. Delete? — kwami (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The source says it's written so. Don't you think it's not needed at all to have a picture of three scripts under the infobox at the top? There's summary showing all three scripts down there. Or maybe you could put that image in the summary section? Jaqeli (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then the source is wrong, and we shouldn't use it. I mean, how could you possibly write an, zhan, or qar with a single line?
I think, if we're going to have a discussion of three scripts, we should have an illustration of the three scripts up front. It's just as important to give people a preview of what they're going to read in the intro as it is to give them a review in the summary. Also, with my current fonts, I can't see any of the Nuskhuri otherwise. I suspect that's going to be true of many of our readers.
Restored some more of the tags you deleted without correcting. For example, you say of some letters that "the closed circumference becomes simpler", but I can't see anything that could be called a "closed circumference". Also, "on the upper horizontal line the circle gets a smaller throat", but there is no circle on the upper horizontal line: it's just a line. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fonts

Mkhedruli and Asomtavruli now come with Windows, but we should have a source for a free, Unicode-based Nuskhuri font. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the following as unintelligible. It's been the subject of two talk-page discussions, with no explanation forthcoming:

In particular, in the seven letters Ⴁ (ბ bani), Ⴏ (ჟ zhani), Ⴣ (ჳ vie), Ⴗ (ყ q'ari), Ⴘ (შ shini), Ⴜ (წ ts'ili) and Ⴝ (ჭ ch'ari), the closed circumference becomes simpler, and an open arc takes its place on one side. In early monuments, the letter Ⴃ (დ doni) is written without the throat, then on the upper horizontal line the circle gets a smaller throat.

I can't fix it, because I don't know what it's supposed to be saying. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arch means that the letters got opened and got the archs on the left in Ⴁ, Ⴏ, Ⴣ, Ⴗ, Ⴘ and in Ⴜ and Ⴝ on the right. As for Ⴃ, the throat means that middle line which connects the circle with the upper horizontal line. Jaqeli (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that ყ used to look like ɡ, Ⴗ used to look like q, and Ⴜ used to look like B? So the letters we have are all modern Asomtavruli; the original script looked much different. Do we have any images of what it looked like before the 7th century? — kwami (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
True. Better if images available for that very date. I'll try to find out. Jaqeli (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold and italic?

Does Georgian have bold and italic? I don't mean in MS Word – in Word, you can add fake bold or italic facing to Chinese, but Chinese really has neither. I'm wondering if Georgian has those faces apart from the faking that MS does. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Bold or italic what? Modern fonts? Jaqeli (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Does Georgian traditionally appear in bold or italic? Do computer fonts have separate bold and italic designs? Or do you just have a single font that World makes heavier or slanted? If the latter, how do publications indicate emphasis? — kwami (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it traditionally ever had something like that. Digitally though you can have bold or italic letters. Jaqeli (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, digitally any script can be manipulated this way, whether it actually has bold and italic typefaces or not.
Was Nuskhuri ever used for emphasis within a line, or only for section titles?
Was red vs. black ink used?
What about the names of books in citations? Are they normal typeface?
Take the bold text in this file. Is that something that is only seen in digital documents? — kwami (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. punctuation, am I correct in concluding that here, : is used as a word divider, ჻ as a sentence or clause divider, and ·჻ (four dots) as a paragraph divider? He also has a double four-dot divider at one point. Do you think he's following any particular tradition, or do people personalize punctuation, so that it's different for each person? — kwami (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kintsurashvili is well-known calligrapher so I think he's following a Georgian calligraphic tradition but unfortunately I cannot tell how those dots were supposed to be used. I know abstractly but by definition being exact I cannot tell. Jaqeli (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Georgia Through Earth, Fire, Air and Water

I have removed citations of

Berman, Michael; Rusieshvili, Manana; Kalandadze, Ketevan (2012). Georgia Through Earth, Fire, Air and Water. John Hunt Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-78099271-6.

The whole of the cited page is copied from a 2010 version of this Wikipedia article. Kanguole 12:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! — kwami (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Graphic variation of bani

You've removed this twice, saying the letters are "not related", but I keep seeing bani written much like mani, with the bottom loops written the same:

ბ (bani) may be written with a wavy line at top and a straight side, like a mirror image of ნ (nari).

Is there some way we could word this that you'd be happy with? — kwami (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ბ (bani) and მ (mani) or ნ (nari) have nothing in common. If you look closely you'll see that line or throat which goes up from ბ is in the very middle which is not true on მ or ნ. მ has a line going up on the right side where ნ on the left thus not in the center or in the middle. That's why I remove them because they have nothing in common in handwriting at all. Jaqeli (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I meant. I handwriting, bani may have the straight side of mani. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you read what I've said? ბ has no common handwriting relations with ნ or მ. Their relations are zero. Jaqeli (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional/obsolete letters

BTW, in print, ჲ is x-height, ჷ and ჳ have descenders, ჱ and ჵ have ascenders, and ჴ and ჶ have both. Do you know if the same is true of handwriting? — kwami (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And what function did the obsolete letters have in Georgian? ჴ is easy: I assume Old Georgian distinguished /qʰ/ from /qʼ/, and the distinction was lost. But the others: Were they diphthongs or long vowels? Or did they transcribe Greek sounds which never had Georgian equivalents? — kwami (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter Kwami! Those 5 were used only for Georgian language. ჱ equaled ეჲ like ქრისტეჲ - ქრისტჱ (christ). ჲ like დედოფლისაჲ (queen's) and was always written in the end and had same pronounce as ი (i). ჳ equaled ვი (vi) sound for example სხჳსი (others') and in modern Georgian it is now written as სხვისი. ჵ was pronounced as equaled Hoi like in ჵ წმიდაო ღმრთისმშობელო (Hoi Holy Virgin Mary). Jaqeli (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That's good info to add. But were they always equivalent? Or were they once different vowels, but over time the distinction was lost, so that ჳ and ვი were not originally pronounced the same, but came to be in the modern language? For example, in English, u was once pronounced [y], and eu was once [ew], but now they're both [ju]. Could ჳ maybe have been a Greek [y] sound, which was lost in both Greek (it's now [i]) and in Georgian? (That's basically the history of Cyrillic Ѵ izhitsa).
So, in handwriting, do they look like they do in print?
Please verify what I say about ჵ is correct.
Happy Easter! — kwami (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Handwritten and print ჳ are the same. I don't know exactly how that transition happened from ჳ to ვი. I think Chavchavadze removed it because the letter equaled two sounds so he preffered to write with two letters. Looking now, indeed it is odd for us to write two sounds with one letter so I think that was the main reason Chavchavadze removed all those five letters. None of them so to say became redundant in that period, it was just reform of the Georgian intellectuals back then who removed them by making written Georgian more easy to write so I doubt those letters became useless on their own. As for ჵ, it was mostly used in the begining of the sentences and had an emotional meaning like Hoi or longor sound ოოოოო (o). Jaqeli (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Presumably the sounds would have been conflated centuries earlier, not when the letters were removed! English u and eu are still spelled differently, despite being pronounced the same for centuries. If ჳ has always been used for two sounds, that would suggest that the script was designed for some language besides Georgian. I guess we'll need to find a source on the history of Georgian if we're to answer this. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
A letter always representing two sounds is very common, at least for consonants. X always means /ks/ in Latin, psi and ksi always mean /ps/ and /ks/ in Greek. Also, there existed ligatures like ȣ for ou in Greek. So we can't exclude the possibility that something that is two sounds to us is just one special sound to some inventor, or some inventor just created some spurious letters based on ligatures of other scripts. Until we get proper source on this, of course. --Ahyangyi (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Strikes me, as an interested reader, that there is too little background information in the article on the circumstances behind these letters becoming "obsolete". The Society for the Spreading of Literacy among Georgians did not juat wave its magical pen and suddenly they were gone from use. Common sense says that it would have taken generations to be completed, and there would have been opposition (which implies high level support for the changes). So how quickly did it happen. And what happened during the Soviet period? Also, how aware are modern Georgians of these letters - are they aware enough to read old books that would have used the obsolete letters? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Source for alleged 430AD date of earliest known inscription

My tags requesting a proper citation for this claim have been repeatedly removed from the article. The inscription in question is undated, so how can such a specific date be claimed for it? Vaxtang Beridze (in The Treasures of Georgia) just writes "Even earlier examples of written Georgian, dating from the first half of the fifth century, have been discovered in the ruins of one of the Georgian monasteries in Palestine". This implies an archeological excavation uncovered them - in which case there should be a proper archaeological report somewhere that can be cited about this find, and not some manual about modern Georgian. And the actual site should be stated, not the vague "in a church in Bethlehem" text that is currently there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is becoming very disruptive. You've been told several times already that it's reffed and if you click on those 2 sources you'll see an answer to your concern. Jaqeli 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And your allowal of deceptive or false content in this article is becoming troubling (I already noted this [2] which I corrected). This article is not perfect and your removal of tags designed to improve it are not helpful edits. In this particular case your sources are general and are not specialist works on archaeology. And they do not even support the content you claim is correct! The inscription is "dated 430 AD" the article currently claims - and this is for an iscription that is not actually dated. What the sources you cite for this claim actually say is "dated to c430" and "dates from c430", i.e. it is an estimated date, and those sources give no references for where this date estimation comes from. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have some problems with understanding English? Sources are there. Just click on it and stop disrupting the article. Jaqeli 16:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The lack of understanding of English is from you, if you are unable to understand that saying "dated 430 AD" is different from saying "dates from c430 AD". The isncription is NOT "dated 430 AD" and no source you have presented is is claiming it is "dated 430 AD". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Direction?

I presume that the Georgian scripts read left-to-right, but the article should say. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch: True. It reads from L-t-R but I don't know why infobox does not show it. Jaqeli 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to @Dixtosa: this issue is now solved. Jaqeli 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kwami

@Kwamikagami: What is your main concern in punctuation's section? Can you please explain a bit for me? I'd like to address those your past cleanup tags so. Jaqeli 22:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In the 10th century, clusters of one (·), two (:), three (჻) and six (჻჻) dots indicate increasing breaks in the text.
It would be nice if we could illustrate their use. However, I remember you saying that usage was idiosyncratic, and thus there was not much to say about it.
Starting in the 11th century, the apostrophe and comma came into use. From the 12th century, the semicolon appears as well.
What did these look like? Were they the Greek punctuation marks, or the modern Latin ones?
In the 18th century, Patriarch Anton I reformed the system, with single and double dots used to mark complete, incomplete, and final sentences.
So, two punctuation marks for three functions. Which were used for which? Also, are we back to the 10th-century punctuation marks? — kwami (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've reviewed the source again and made changes accordingly. It lacked some info from the source. Jaqeli 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I still don't really understand, though.
For the dots, what are "special words"? Whats the difference between a "small stop" and a "bigger stop"? Is it perhaps a word break vs a phrase break?
So, every interrogative word had an apostrophe after it? That would be rather strange usage, compared to other languages. Is that because, in written Georgian, you cannot tell which words are interrogative? Why wouldn't the comma for interrogative sentences be sufficient? Is there an example?
What's the difference between a "complete", "incomplete", and "final" sentence?
— kwami (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: The source does not give that much details unfortunately. But I think the punctuation made by Ephrem Mtsire should had followed the Greek punctuation tradition. The Georgian manuscripts had frequently highlighted places on the paper. They would write in a different size, color some special parts of the sentence just to highlight its importance so methinks those punctuation marks should be used like that though I cannot tell because the details is unknown for me and the source just explains it that way. Jaqeli 19:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I think the solution then is to put the phrases in quotation marks, to indicate that they are the wording of the source but that we don't actually know what they mean. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How's that? I changed the wording to say that the comma and apostrophe were replaced with the semi-colon, which is what I suspect you meant. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Thanks. That's a lot better now. Still I will try to find some more info on the Georgian punctuation. Jaqeli 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be lovely. I find this kind of thing interesting, but it's often ignored in the lit. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

430 AD

The article mentions three times the date "430AD" for the Bethlehem Inscription. The first mention, in the info box, is unreferenced. The mention in the image of the inscription is also unreferenced. In the body of the article the claim "and the Bethlehem inscription of 430" is followed by a reference which does not seem to support this either, but only that the earliest attestations are from the 5th century AD. Until references can be found I've added citation needed tags. Sotakeit (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sotakeit: Sources are there though I've added one more. Jaqeli 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: I've obviously not read the new source, but as long as that confirms the claim, that's me placated. Thanks for the quick response! Sotakeit (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

how to fix my screen.

I get Ⴟ (ჯ jani). What do I need to do to see what is in the box? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

date and other mistakes in this article

According famous scholars Ivane Javakhishvili (from his book "Georgian Paleography"), Ramaz Pataridze (from his book "Georgian Asomtavruli") and many others, and also according old Georgian historical documents Georgian alphabet was created at least in 284 BC. Ramaz Pataridze dates it V century BC. And as for the oldest found Georgian inscription that of 430 AD is not the oldest. The oldest so far archaeologists have found dates back to II century AD found in Nekresi [1][2][3][4]. And all the recent and Javakhishvili's researches definitely show that Georgian alphabet is NOT modeled on Greek alphabet but on Phoenician. It is created in heathen times, when even the term 'Christian' didn't exist. And besides of being writing system and alphabet, as Ramaz Pataridze researched and found it, it had a function of calendar. Accordingly, it definitely rules out the idea that Mesrop Mashtots (who even didn't know Georgian language and it is impossible to create such alphabet if you don't speak this language fluently) or anyone else like him created Mrglovani alphabet. Sydbeqabarrett (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have edited approximate and the most famous date according scholars and later will edit in the text about the researches of the founder of Georgian paleography - Ivane Javakhishvili and another Georgian paleographer - Ramaz Pataridze. They must be mentioned when we talk about Georgian alphabet.Sydbeqabarrett (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://vasasi.free.fr/page1/page19/page19.html
  2. ^ https://pustels.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%90%E1%83%97%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1-%E1%83%A1%E1%83%A2%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%90%E1%83%A1%E1%83%90-%E1%83%93%E1%83%90-%E1%83%9C%E1%83%94%E1%83%99%E1%83%A0%E1%83%94/
  3. ^ http://asomtavruli.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_2438.html
  4. ^ https://iberiana.wordpress.com/alphabet/nekresi/

Additional letters

The unicode characters ჼ (MODIFIER LETTER GEORGIAN NAR), ჽ (“GEORGIAN LETTER AEN”), ჾ (“GEORGIAN LETTER HARD SIGN”), and ჿ “GEORGIAN LETTER LABIAL SIGN”) are lacking explanation. --Ivadon (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgian scripts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgian scripts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unicamerality

@Capmo: The article isn't accurate when it states that modern Georgian script (Mkhedruli) is unicameral. You can read some blog posts about the capitals (Mkhedruli Mtavruli or just Mtavruli) on the BPG Fonts blog. Nowadays I guess Mtavruli letters are most commonly used in titles or other environments in which all-caps might be used in English, but the blog posts give some examples of initial capitalization. Maybe the statement in the article came from the fact that till version 11 this month Unicode didn't include Mtavruli, so the characters in Unicode were caseless, or that the two cases are not typically used in the same text. — Eru·tuon 03:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Erutuon, thanks for the info. Unfortunately, blog posts won't be accepted as reliable sources here at Wikipedia. If you could find a reference to this on traditional newspapers and add that information to the article, that would be great! —capmo (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Now I see the difference: Mtavruli letters all have the same height and baseline. Mtavruli is cited in the article only in the Computing section, that many people probably won't read. Its existence should be explained at the section dedicated to Mkhedruli, and the statement about it being unicameral removed, for consistency. —capmo (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Capmo: I'm not arguing for or against using the BPG Fonts blog as a reference (though it is being used right now), just pointing to it as a source of information for you. Fortunately, much of what it says is repeated in the initial proposal for adding Mtavruli to Unicode. I've added a short statement about Mtavruli to the Mkhedruli section. — Eru·tuon 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Lazs

What part of Lazs use Georgian script for writing their language? Ones that live in Georgia or Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.5.138 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Unknown IP addresses vandalism

Dear Wikipedians, please note that the article is vandalized by all these unknown IP addresses. Emperor of Emperors (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent quotes by Armenian linguists

We cannot quote all authors who have ever done research on the origin of Georgian alphabet or have voiced their opinion on the subject. This is especially true for Armenian academics, who are, naturally, keen to uphold the Masrop theory. Should we, then, add all Georgian scholars with their quotes to counterbalance the potential bias in the article? --KoberTalk 13:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you even took a few seconds to read Leo's opinion, but it was more sympathetic to the Georgian viewpoint that it is the only reason I added his opinion. ----Երևանցի talk 13:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It does not add anything valuable to the article as his opinion is not much different from what others say. It does not really matter whether his opinion is closer to the Georgian or Armenian view. --KoberTalk 13:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It's an alternative interpretation of Koryun's account that differs from the majority of Armenian scholars. ----Երևանցի talk 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Letters Not Displaying Properly

Under "Letters added to other alphabets" little boxes appear in place of aen, the hard sign, and the labial sign.

I wonder if bitmaps could be provided for those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CE:AA59:D5F8:7CB4:DE49:F852 (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Letters

The alphabet table contains Mkhedruli letters, not Mrglovani/Asomtavruli ones.Sydbeqabarrett (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgian_scripts/Archive_4&oldid=1248593417"