# Glagolica and Coptic alphabet: related?



## WannaBeMe

Hello!

"The Glagolitic alphabet or Glagolitsa is the oldest known Slavic alphabet. It was created by brothers Saint Cyril (827–869 AD) and Saint Methodius (826–885 AD) in 855 or around 862–3 in order to translate the Bible and other texts into Slavic", this is what I found about origins of Glagolica.

But I have found also that Coptic Orthodox Church in Ethiopia and Egipt has an alphabet which looks like Glagolica in one way. This alphabet was invented about 500 years before glagolica.

Could it be that these two alphabets have the same origins?
They look preety similar to me but how much have they in reality common?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


WannaBeMe said:


> But I have found also that Coptic Orthodox Church in Ethiopia and Egipt has an alphabet which looks like Glagolica in one way. This alphabet was invented about 500 years before glagolica.
> Could it be that these two alphabets have the same origins?


Aren't all alphabets ultimately related?

Anyway, as far as I understood, both the glalolitic and Coptic alphabets are heavily based upon the Greek alphabet.
Here we have an overview of the glagolitic letters with extra information (I see Greek, Hebrew, Coptic influence). Here you find the Coptic alphabet, with extra information (basically Greek). And here you have the Greek one.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## sokol

Yes, there are very strong arguments for both alphabets depending heavily on Greek even though the signs for the letters themselves don't make it that easy to make the connection.

I never had a look at the *Coptic *alphabet before; but the Wiki link given by Frank clearly shows that many letters look similar to Greek ones, and most importantly the order for the letters also is very similar. Note that each letter also has a number value and alone to write numbers with letters is taken from the Greek alphabet; further the numbers assigned to the letters also determine the order of the alphabet which in Coptic begins like in Greek, and even the names are Greek.

Same goes for *Glagolica *of course: even though the letters do not look very much (if at all) like the Greek ones the word order nevertheless is "Greek", and also Glagolica letters have a numerical value assigned to them - which is not shown in the Wiki article but which goes like:
Az' (Greek: alpha) = 1
Buky (Greek: beta) = 2
Vede (no Greek letter) = 3
Glagoli (Greek: gamma) = 4
Dobro (Greek: delta) = 5
... and so on: yes, true, not exactly identical to Greek, but then basically the alpha-beta-gamma-order of Greek alphabet with some deviations due to new letters introduced to make writing of Slavic easier.

Glagolica letter names do not show any similarity to the Greek ones, but this was deliberate: Kiril & Method wanted to create a specifically Slavic alphabet and named Glagolica letters after Slavic words (in most cases) beginning with the letter concerned.
Further they also deliberately chose letters different from the Greek ones (in many though not all cases of course; and with Fert = F and Fita = F two letters identical to Greek where further most likely in Old Church Slavonic one letter F would have sufficed, to my knowledge).

I think we can safely say that both Glagolica and Coptic alphabet are descendants of the Greek alphabet - in style and use certainly, even if not concerning the actual *style *of individual letters: here in Coptic some and in Glagolica many letters are not derived fom Greek ones, not directly at least.


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> Same goes for Glagolicaof course: even though the letters do not look very much (if at all) like the Greek ones the *word order nevertheless is "Greek"*, and also Glagolica letters have a *numerical value* assigned to them - which is not shown in the Wiki article but which goes like:
> Az' (Greek: alpha) = 1
> Buky (Greek: beta) = 2
> Vede (no Greek letter) = 3
> Glagoli (Greek: gamma) = 4
> Dobro (Greek: delta) = 5
> _[highlighting changed]_


This is not distinctive of Greek. Greek ordering of letters (up to tau) including their use as numerals is taken from Canaanite (Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, varying only in the shape of its 22 letters) alphabets which are the common ancestors of all the discussed alphabets (except that Coptic has also borrowed _directly_ from demotic Egyptian which is also the main source of Canaanite alphabets).


----------



## sokol

berndf said:


> This is not distinctive of Greek.


I know, but at least for Glagolica we can safely say that the added value to the letters is taken from Greek.
With Coptic I can't be sure of course, this only was a guess of mine: it could be that in Coptic the principle was borrowed from any of the other alphabets of the region.

(Some Glagolica letters - that is, the actual shape of them - too also have non-Greek ancestors as posted here by Darina. The actual shape of the letters however does not necessary say that the invention was 'original' - in most cases it wasn't, which for both Glagolica and Coptic writing systems seems to be the case: both the principle of an alphabetic script and the use of letters as numbers was borrowed from other writing system; the question is only if really both go back to Greek or if for Coptic there are other sources too.)

I've now compared Greek and Phoenician (the latter supposedly the ancestor of the Greek one): up to and including Greek Tau both match pretty well in word order (only some additional letters in Phoenician).
And there's Phi, Psi, Chi and Omega which both Greek and Coptic share while Phoenician doesn't: and that I think really is a strong argument that Greek at least played an important role for development of Coptic; of course I cannot tell if Greek had been the template or if it was a mix of Greek and other alphabets, I am not an expert for Coptic at all (as already said; only had a look at it today for the first time).


----------



## jana.bo99

Hi,

I have found Glagolica letters but I am not sure, can I post it here.

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Glagolica.gif - 35k

I can't do it. Here is very clear how letters look like.


----------



## jana.bo99

Here are only Glagolica letters (in Word). It doesn't look nice, but at least we can see them.


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> I know, but at least for Glagolica we can safely say that the added value to the letters is taken from Greek.


Knowing you I know you know. I just wanted to clarify this point for the benefit of other readers.
 
I am of course not contradicting you on your main claim that Geek is to be regarded as the main source for Glagolitic. Given the fact that the alphabet was created by Byzantine missionaries, everything else should come as an utter surprise.
 



> I've now compared Greek and Phoenician (the latter supposedly the ancestor of the Greek one): up to and including Greek Tau both match pretty well in word order (only some additional letters in Phoenician).


Greek was originally identical to Phoenician up to Tau. Subsequent letters have been added. Compared to earlier versions of the Greek alphabet, some Phoenician letters have been lost in classical Greek, e.g. Greek _Digamma = _Phoenician_ Waw._



> and that I think really is a strong argument that Greek at least played an important role for development of Coptic


Coptic is certainly based Geek. Some of the extra characters also appear in some variants of the Canaanite alphabets but some (at the end without numeral values) not. It would be the most plausible assumption that those be taken from demotic Egyptian.
 
Some of those extra characters in Coptic can also be found in Glagolitic (and Cyrillic). Coptic influence on Glagolitic is in by mind to be assumed.


----------



## sokol

berndf said:


> Coptic influence on Glagolitic is in by mind to be assumed.


Well, I should have read the Wiki text (German Wiki) beforehand: there is mentioned that Kyril indeed *had *been influenced by Caucasian (esp. Georgian) and Semitic writing systems. He was an educated man after all.


----------



## Darina

[


sokol said:


> (Some Glagolica letters - that is, the actual shape of them - too also have non-Greek ancestors as posted here by Darina.


 
I compared Kirilica and Bulgarian runes. The situation with Glagolica is a bit different. Here is an article about the origin of Glagolica (in Bulgarian):
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Glagolitsa%20i%20sarmatski%20znatsi/Glagolitsa%20i%20sarmatski%20znatsi.htm

Just scroll down to see the table!
The author compares the Glagolitic letters with identical or similar letters from other alphabets. Most of the Glagolitic letters were in fact identical with Scytho-Sarmatian runes! 
These are the letters: 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39.
Just like the Scytho-Satmatian runes, the Glagolitic letters consist of three main elements: a triagle, a circle and a connective line. Unfortunally, the meaning of the Scytho-Sarmatian runes is not given (probably not known?).

The other letters are:
Letter 1 (Az) - the Holy Trinity simbol.
2 (Buki) is identical with the Chinese hieroglyph "Ba". 
4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31 are Bulgarian runes.
4 (again), 14 (I added it besause it is definitely "lambda"), 18, 21, 23 - Greek.
13- Old Jewish
16- Avestan
30 is my favorite- "Sha". The letter is a Bulgarian rune, Old Jewish, Aramaean, Phoenician letter and Chinese hieroglyph "Sha".
The rest are unknown. I guess the Holy brothers showed some imagination here.

After all:
Aren't all alphabets ultimately related? (Frank06)

This author compares Glagolica with Germanic runes and he is probably right, too:
[Hanus Ignaz J., dr., ordentlich. Mitglied und Bibliotheker der K. bohm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft in Prag. Zur slavischen Runenfrage mit besonderer Rucksicht auf die obotritischen Runen-Alterthumer so wie auf die Glagoliza und Kyrilica. Als ein Beitrag zur comparativen germanisch-slavischen Archaologiie, entworfen von... // Archiv fur Kunde Osterreichischer Geschichits-Quellen. Wien, 1857, XVIII Bd., S. 1-114]

The next ones say the origin of Glagolica is East Caucasian Albaian:
Geitler L. Die albanischen und slavischen Schriften. Wien, 1883

Or Arabic:
Григорович В. Обозрения славянских литератур. Воронеж, 1880, с. 29

Or Greek:
Taylor Isaak, dr. Ueber den Ursprung des glagolischen Alphabets. // Archiv fur slavische Philologie, V Bd., 1880, II Teil, S. 191-192

Ягич И. В., "Четыре критико-палеографические статьи" (СПб., 1884); Ягич И. В. Вопрос о рунах у славян // Энциклопедия славянской филологии, вып. 3. Графика у славян. СПб, 1911, с. 26


An so on...


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Darina said:


> I compared Kirilica and Bulgarian runes. The situation with Glagolica is a bit different. Here is an article about the origin of Glagolica (in Bulgarian):[...]
> http://www.protobulgarians.com/Stat...tski znatsi/Glagolitsa i sarmatski znatsi.htmJust scroll down to see the table!
> The author compares the Glagolitic letters with identical or similar letters from other alphabets. Most of the Glagolitic letters were in fact identical with Scytho-Sarmatian runes!


And -- if the information you gave is reliable, I don't read the language on the page -- where do they come from?
Can you give us a timeframe?



> After all:
> Aren't all alphabets ultimately related? (Frank06)


Yes. And what's your point?


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Darina

These are runic iscriptions found in a necropole from II-III century where a Sarmatian warrior was buried.

Glagolica is based on several alphabets which is easily explainable.
The brothers were Greek (at least there father was).
They were polyglotes and they traveled a lot. 
?-851: mission in Bagdad.
851-859: mission in Bulgaria.
860: mission in the Khazar Khaganate. On the way they stopped in Cherson to learn the language. There they learnt also a runic script (probably Syrian or Germanic, noboby knows for sure).


861: mission in Great Moravia, where they brought the Glagolica and "preached in a language understandable by the Slavs."


----------



## Hulalessar

WannaBeMe said:


> Could it be that these two alphabets have the same origins?


 
In one important sense all alphabetic writing has only one origin and that is in Greek. By "alphabetic writing" I mean a system in which vowels and consonants are both represented by signs of the same kind and in which all the vowels are represented. The Phoenician system of writing was not alphabetic in this sense since, while vowels could be represented, they were not always represented. This was because Phoenician was a Semitic language and not all vowels needed to be represented because sufficient lexical information was contained in the consonants and vowels were readily supplied by the reader. Greek was phonologically different from Phoenician and vowels needed to be represented. Necessity being the mother of invention, vowels were represented, though whether this arose by accident or by design is not known. The fact remains that no examples of Greek where the vowels are not fully represented have been found.

Once the system of alphabetic writing was developed by the Greeks it was never reinvented by anyone else. The only question is whether any particular sign in any particular alphabet can be shown to be ultimately derived from a particular letter of the Greek alphabet, or whether it was freely invented or perhaps derived from another source.

Glagolitic was devised by someone who knew Greek. He did not invent alphabetic writing, but applied the principles developed by the Greeks. The source of the letters used in Glagolitic is much discussed, but it is quite possible that the signs were freely invented. No one knows.



WannaBeMe said:


> They look preety similar to me but how much have they in reality common?


 
When comparing two writing systems it is important not to be seduced by the outward form of the signs.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> In one important sense all alphabetic writing has only one origin and that is in Greek. ... _<lots of undisputed information about the significance of Greek>_


I'm not sure I'm getting your point regarding the relationship between Glagolica and Coptic.



> No one knows.


Is this your point?



> When comparing two writing systems it is important not to be seduced by the outward form of the signs.


How true.


----------



## sokol

Darina said:


> Most of the Glagolitic letters were in fact identical with Scytho-Sarmatian runes!


Well, I wouldn't say _identical _- similarities, of course, exist.

But I guess we should keep focus on what we know - and as the article quoted only lists Bulgarian sources (at the end of the article) - and then only three - I am not convinced. Similarities could be coincidental, or if they aren't it could be that the runes which look similar to Glagolica letters were only taken from other scripts (like Caucasian ones) and that what Kiril used hadn't been the rune but the original (Caucasian or whatever).

So this it-looks-similar-so-it's-the-same just doesn't satisfy me fully.

And further of course it is still clear that Glagolica anyway is, in _style and use,_ a descendant of the _Greek _alphabet, as is the Coptic alphabet; the actual form of individual letters wouldn't proove otherwise even if we _could_ proove that most of them were taken from the runes.


----------



## Darina

Well, I already said that Glagolica was influenced by several alphabets. Scytho-Sarmatian runes cannot satisfy me fully. Neither does the the Coptic alphabet, especially in style.

P.S. The references are Russian.


----------



## sokol

Darina said:


> Well, I already said that Glagolica was influenced by several alphabets. Scytho-Sarmatian runes cannot satisfy me fully. Neither does the the Coptic alphabet, especially in style.


 Coptic certainly doesn't look like Glagolica, I've just mentioned it as it is by chance the topic of this thread.  And for another reason:
Coptic and Glagolica both obviously go back to the same roots but don't really have common roots except for minor influence (it seems) of some Coptic signs for Glagolica signs.

And the same could very well be true for Scytho-Sarmatian runes and Glagolica: that they both - concerning their style, the letters itself - go back to even _older _traditions and that probably only with some signs there is a direct relations, but with most there isn't.
I just will have to stay sceptic as long as the scientists dealing with that matter can't really agree on a theory*) (which anyway would be difficult as we don't have too much written documents from the period before Glagolica, be it on the Balkans or in the Russian steppes, except such written in Greek, and even of that not a great many I'd guess).
*) Well - personally I am not one of them, that is even though I am a linguist I never did extensive research on Glagolica and/or Scythian runes.



> P.S. The references are Russian.


You're right, and I am sorry: I just saw Simferopol' and should have known that the town lies on Krim, probably I'll be forgiven that one while overlooking Kiyev certainly is a different matter.


----------



## Hulalessar

There is no doubt that the Coptic alphabet is derived from Greek. Ignoring the six letters borrowed from Demotic, the forms, values and even the names of the letters are (more or less) the same as in Greek. To say that Glagolitic looks like Coptic is virtually tantamount to saying it looks like Greek.

In _A Study of Writing_, Gelb posits the following possibilities when a new writing system comes about:

1. The forms of the signs and their values are borrowed.

2. The forms are all borrowed, but the values assigned are partly borrowed, partly freely invented.

3. The forms and values are partly borrowed, partly freely invented.

4. The forms are borrowed but the values given to the signs are new.

5. The forms are partly borrowed, partly invented, with new values.

6. The forms are freely invented, with new values.

He places Glagolitic in the last category.

He demonstrates the folly of relying on outward forms to show the relatedness of different scripts by a table showing the similarity of signs taken from a wide range of scripts from around the world. He also gives an example of a "secret" script invented by a child which has remarkable similarities to ancient Semitic scripts!

There is no known script with an inventory of signs that can been looked at which can be said clearly to be the basis for the forms of the signs in Glagolitic. Nevertheless, some of the signs do bear some resemblance to signs in a variety of other scripts which were or may have been known to the inventor of the script. Applying Occam's razor, the most likely explanation is that the inventor of the script devised a series of new signs that were, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the scripts he was familiar with. Even if uninfluenced, if you devise a new script and keep the signs relatively simple, there is a strong possibility that more than a few of the signs will resemble the signs of other scripts and that you will afford endless hours of fun to those trying to discover the inspiration for your new script.


----------



## Darina

sokol said:


> Coptic certainly doesn't look like Glagolica, I've just mentioned it as it is by chance the topic of this thread.  And for another reason:
> Coptic and Glagolica both obviously go back to the same roots but don't really have common roots except for minor influence (it seems) of some Coptic signs for Glagolica signs.


 
Well, I was trying to say the same. It's perhaps my English...

"And the same could very well be true for Scytho-Sarmatian runes and Glagolica: that they both - concerning their style, the letters itself - go back to even _older _traditions and that probably only with some signs there is a direct relations, but with most there isn't."

Yes! And what I find intriguing is the whole network of different alphabets, influeced or based on older ones (Glagolica is only one example), which gives important information about the cultural relations in the past.


----------



## sokol

Darina said:


> Yes! And what I find intriguing is the whole network of different alphabets (...)


It is intriguing, yes. 


Hulalessar said:


> 6. The forms are freely invented, with new values.
> 
> He places Glagolitic in the last category.


I wouldn't say freely invented - I'd rather say invented on the basis of the alphabets Kiryl knew.
It is only difficult to decide where, concerning the forms of the letters, a template was used or where the letter really was invented, or where probably styles of letters of different alphabets were mixed into one.
So for example Glagolica /e/ and nasal /e/ clearly could be either from Greek (even though Glagolica /e/ is open to the left side) or from another source; and nasal /yo/ is a combination of a (probable) Greek /e/ and a letter of other provenience.

In style and use (with letters being numbers too, and concerning the order of the alphabet) the Greek *template *is very obvious, with *style *of letters Greek origin only could be seen with a few one. But still not freely invented is what I'd say.

But I really shouldn't speculate too much about possible origins of individual Glagolica letter as I really am not the expert here.  I prefer to keep to what I said before, that I'd prefer to be rather careful about this - and believe nothing until convincing evidence is shown.


----------

