Talk:Nivkh alphabets

Letter variants

Nixkh continues to use the normal letters w descender, e.g. in П’мифускырң қ’атьгун правоғун Декларация Укрғарң Қ’атьгун Организация (ниғвгун хара лоти хара туғскир раюк). Декларация Организации Объединенных Наций о правах коренных народов from 2014. AFAICT only the one textbook publishing house uses the hooked variants. Adjusting table accordingly. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Here in the dictionary the alphabet that you removed is used: 1,

also on the website of the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences within the framework of the project “small languages of Russia”, these alphabets are also used (for both dialects): 2, 3

I think what you have given are just variations of the letters that you have given due to typographic difficulties. Modun (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice the publisher: Просвещение. They're the ones who invented these variants.

These aren't (necessarily) due to typographic difficulties. Просвещение designed new glyphs for these letters for their own publications. Other publishers continue to use the regular forms. Unicode is now refusing to accept any more of them (e.g. Ҷ and Ӻ), as the original batch was a mistake.

It's a bit like some English-language publishers using the forms 'ɑ' and 'ɡ' for 'a' and 'g'. They aren't different letters. If a US publisher who put out a lot of textbooks for Indian schools did that, people would start arguing that Kiowa (say) uses 'ɑ' and 'ɡ' instead of 'a' and 'g', and that the Kiowa alphabet doesn't have 'a' and 'g'. But it wouldn't be wrong if legislation etc. was written using 'a' and 'g'. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The situation is approximately the same in the Yukaghir languages. Local publications in Yakutia are published in one version of the alphabet, in St. Petersburg for some reason in another. Because of this, there is a discrepancy like here. Perhaps the scientific institute knows better why and which alphabet they used? Modun (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe.

From the discussion at Unicode, e.g. L2/23-015 (Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280)), it would seem they're simply a stylistic choice that is now unfortunately fossilized in Unicode. Similar to Cyrillic Extended-C -- Unicode just added a pair of real letters this month, but the first 9 characters are mere graphic variants that they now regret encoding. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I will still stick to my opinion. After all, these are linguists who study these languages ​​and know more than us about the state of languages. In addition, UNICODE does not establish the composition and type of specific alphabets. It only codifies them. Modun (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The people commenting are not Unicode, but linguists who study these languages. — kwami (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop it already, please! What you have cited is simply someone's working correspondence with UNICODE. Nothing is entered there, nothing changes! There is not even a mention or discussion of the Nivkh language or its alphabets!

I'm not even talking about the fact that you simply ignored the existing sources and didn't even recheck them! Modun (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No-one said anything about anything changing.

We have RS's using different variants of these letters. We have an expert not on Nivx, but on other languages with the same letters and textbooks published by the same publisher, with the same graphic conventions, who notes that these are allographs. We have government publications that back that up.

I also don't know why you insist that many of the letters of the alphabet aren't real letters, but just punctuation. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop, you made your first edits to the article by REPLACING existing letters in the alphabet, and not adding them as variations to existing letters. Not adding any remarks on the variations of these same bulls IGNORING existing sources. In the existing links in the article, the alphabets already have this form and replacement without other sources provided is not required. Modun (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The edits were rolled back according to the references already provided in the article. Modun (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So, even when I correct that, you revert because of, what exactly? — kwami (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my last reply I indicated why. But I don't see any convincing evidence anywhere that the letters you cited are just variations of existing letters, and not an adopted new alphabet. Modun (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your source that this is a new alphabet, when we have a source that, across multiple languages that use these letters, they are mere allographs?

We use sources on WP, not your imagination of what might be if we had different sources. — kwami (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! This is Cyrillic, not Latin! It doesn't work that way here! Once again, where is it stated that these letters are "allografs"? Secondly, initially you simply replaced the letters without any sources. That's why I am giving the alphabets according to the sources already given, which you didn't even bother to recheck yourself. Modun (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What does Latin have to do with anything? Doesn't work what way?

Um, maybe if you read things before deciding they were wrong, you'd know what you were talking about. — kwami (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, maybe in the Latin alphabet or Chinese writing allographs are widespread, but in the Cyrillic alphabet this is not represented in the same way. Secondly, the Cyrillic scripts of many nations have already been reformed and letters replaced many times. And many variations of letters are simply no longer relevant and are not “variations” of existing letters. A simple example is the Sami language in Russia, where it is also easy to get confused. Modun (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a RS that these print glyphs and Unicode characters are allographs. We have different official publishers that use different forms in what is otherwise the same orthography. So that's obviously the 'way it works' in Cyrillic. You don't get to decide that the publishing houses or government ministries are wrong; we can only report on the actual situation. — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, what you provided is just someone's comment, opinion, and not the original source. In those sources that I provided (and which were) in a practical sense, a different alphabet is used than what you provided, to which you did not even provide a link. It does not oblige to anything, nor does it replace any letters. I only brought the text into line with those sources that are already indicated in the article, and which you ignored.

In my opinion, some neutral opinion is needed here, from an outsider. Modun (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Secondly, in Cyrillic, allographs are simply used less often than in the Latin alphabet. In Cyrillic, it doesn't work that way. Forgive me for listening to a person who knows Russian and also the Yakut language to one degree or another and knows how it works in practice, not in theory. Modun (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources for what you claim, great. Please provide them. By that I mean sources that actually address the issue, which AFAICT none of yours do. Just saying "I'm not going to listen to the experts because I don't agree with them" is not evidence for WP. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that's why I'm asking, where does it say that the letter variants you provided are just "allographs". It's not that obvious. Yes, I understood that in Latin writing "()" is "g", and "ɑ" is "a", but in Cyrillic it works a little differently. Replacing some letters with others is not welcome. This is not just a change of letters in the alphabet, it is perhaps a slightly different spelling, which at first glance may not be obvious. Modun (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion. It's only 3 pages long. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is just someone's working opinion, not binding. Secondly, even people participating in the discussion admit that Cyrillic letters with a hook are technically is WRONG! Thirdly, the discussion mentions specific languages, but there is no mention of the Nivkh language. Modun (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

and there are no other evidences, except for this discussion for some reason. Moreover, UNICODE has no competence to change the composition of alphabets or specific letters Modun (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being "binding"?

They speak of these letters in general, across multiple languages. They do not say the hooked variants are wrong. And this is the opinion of an expert in several of the languages in question, and so a RS for our purposes. It's also part of a larger conversation with other experts of other languages in question, but a representative one.

I would think the Russian govt is also a RS for Cyrillic orthography. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The Russian government at various levels is already establishing the composition and types of certain alphabets, because the majority of Cyrillic-written peoples live in Russia.

In the example you gave with different types of Latin letters "a" and "g" these are variations of the same letters, not separate letters. And in this case, we are talking about the Cyrillic letters mentioned not just about "variations", but about completely different letters that perform (not are not) the function of allographs. Can you even imagine what kind of inconsistency there would be in the already existing alphabets? Modun (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The inconsistency comes from pretending these are separate letters, when they are not. They are allographs, as per multiple sources. Your belief does not override reliable sourcing. That you still don't understand this simple fact is the problem. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

As for there supposedly not being any allography in Cyrillic, take a look at the difference between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian. Lots of allography both in roman and italic typeface. No-one claims that Bulgarian should be typeset with a different set of letters from Russian, even though they look very different. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The key point here is that these are simply different fonts, and these are already separate letters, and not “variations” of existing letters. Modun (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what an allograph is. They are not different "fonts". Russian isn't defined as a "font". They are language-dependent allographs. — kwami (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What does the Russian language have to do with it? You understand that many letters were not modified, but for some reason new letters were adopted instead of old ones, and at the same time the spelling in the languages ​​changed. Modun (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An illustration that Cyrillic has allographs, which if your knowledge extended past a couple decades would be obvious to you.

You've effectively claimed that Russian Cyrillic is not an alphabet, but a "font". You say that the different forms of ⟨б⟩ are "fonts", but that the different forms of ⟨ң⟩ are "letters". Where's your evidence? Only in your imagination. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Because that's essentially how it is, but for some reason you ignore it. Better read how each alphabet was specifically adopted. They didn't "modify" the letters, they adopted OTHER letters instead!!! The basic composition of the letters did not change because the creators DELIBERATELY focused on the Russian language, the spelling of many languages ​​was left deliberately dependent on Russian spelling!! Modun (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

According to our sources, you have your facts backwards. Again, if you have a source for your claims, please provide it. I've asked you several times, and am getting tired of reading your excuses for not answering. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What "excuses"? Listen, you made your first edits without citing your sources, ignoring all the existing sources in the article. That's not how it's done!

And besides the source you cited, which looks more like OR, why can't you cite anything else? What working discussion, in your opinion, is somehow more significant than textbooks and dictionaries that use a specific alphabet, and you dare to accuse me of "excuses"? Modun (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any other source that these letters are "allografs" of each other, rather than accusing me of "excuses"? Modun (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have no sources for what you imagine to be true, and dismiss experts in the field because they do not confirm your prejudices. It's not up to me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to support your claims with evidence. Until you do so, I'm not going to waste any more of my time here.

Yes, there are other sources, but I'd have to hunt for them. Again, I'm not going to waste more of my time until you provide some evidence for your claims, and hopefully educate yourself so you understand what we're talking about here. — kwami (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Are you kidding me? I gave you the sources in the first reply (to those already in the article). And I made the kickbacks in accordance with the already existing references. Modun (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I must've missed it. Please give the paragraph, or better yet, paste a quote, where they state that these variants are not allographs but distinct Cyrillic letters. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't even give a reverse example where it is stated that these letters are "allographs" in the Nivkh language. All modern sources indicate alphabets in one form and not one variant with the indicated variants of your letters.

Here is another example in a modern form: 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.

Everywhere it is said that the alphabets were repeatedly reformed, and nowhere is it said that the letters you indicated are “allographs” of modern letters. Modun (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All the sources I have cited indicate a single version of the alphabet, including sociolinguistic information about languages ​​on the website of the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And you know, I doubt that such competent linguists would have made such a gross mistake without posting an incorrect version of the alphabet. Modun (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

But none of those sources support your claim that these are distinct letters. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read allograph so you know what an allograph is. (I was going to suggest ru:Аллограф, but they include orthographic differences as 'allographs', which is not part of the meaning of the English word.) — kwami (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read a little more about this process in this article: Cyrillisation in the Soviet Union. Modun (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Where specifically in that article? I don't see anything relevant. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Most sources claim that the alphabet was constantly changing. And you have not provided any convincing evidence that the letters in question are allographs. For some reason, you consider the opinion of ONE linguist to be more valuable than all other sources, and by the way, other linguists also do not agree with this opinion even in the discussion you mentioned. Modun (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have no relevant sources. Not one to support your claim that these are distinct alphabets, or that the original forms of the letters are inappropriate for Nivkh. Contrary to that is the fact that the Russian govt itself publishes Nivkh documents in the original forms, and a representative discussion by and quoting several linguists saying that these are allographs.

"Constantly changing"? It went to Latin and back, but what is your source that the alphabet has been "constantly changing" since the 1960s? — kwami (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What document does the "Russian government" publish? What is the source? Modun (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Listen, you haven't provided any evidence other than the opinion of one linguist that the letters in question can be replaced by others because they are allographs. This is absolutely an OR statement. It's not a fact! Modun (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

For "facts", you need evidence. Your claim is that your OR is "fact" but that expert accounts are "OR". You have it backwards.

I'm going to have to track down the trade deal in Nivkh. But meanwhile, here's another source that uses the original alloglyphs: [1]

— kwami (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not finding that doc. I think it was for mining concessions in Sakhalin. But here's something else: parallel Nivx and Russian translations of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. They use the ticked variants of the letters throughout. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)