# All Slavic languages: Cyrillic vs. Latin alphabets



## Kartof

Hi!

This is my first post on this forum and I really hope that I'm posting this in the right place.

However, I was wondering, as far as Slavic languages go, do you prefer the use of the Cyrillic or the Latin alphabet?  I know that Cyrillic was specifically created to represent the sounds of Slavic languages but I was wondering on what Slavic speakers' personal preferences are, especially Serbian speakers who have the option of using either alphabet at their choice.

Thanks for your responses in advance!


----------



## DarkChild

I always prefer to use the Cyrillic alphabet. It looks better and more aesthetic to me. As you know, even in most Bulgarian forums it is not allowed to write in Latin.


----------



## Kartof

I can definitely understand that.  Bulgarian written in the Latin script is definitely harder for me to read and a lot less pleasing to the eye.


----------



## Bog Svarog

Kartof said:


> Hi!


Hello. 



> However, I was wondering, as far as Slavic languages go, do you prefer the use of the Cyrillic or the Latin alphabet?


Hah, well, your way of asking that question makes it quite interesting.

I *prefer* using Slavic runes, but as there is no credible source containing them, their use would be based on nothing more than mere speculation.
Second place is shared between the (Croatian) Latin script, and the Cyrillic of Old Church Slavonic. An example of the latter it can be seen in my signature. 
Third place is the pre-WWII Bulgarian/Macedonian Cyrillic (meaning before the orthographic reform). I find it especially tragic that this script isn't in use anymore, because it bridged a gap between Macedonian/Shop/Bulgarian dialects. For instance: I can think of 4 different pronunciations of the _yat_ vowel in Macedonia and Bulgaria, which used to be representable by one and the same unbiased letter. Shame really, but alas.
Fourth place is the modern Bulgarian Cyrillic.
Fifth place is modern Macedonian/Serbian Cyrillic. I prefer the I and J to look alike, and I don't like softening to be represented by more than one means: *ќ ѓ њ љ *vs *кь гь нь ль*. Although ofcourse in a lot of cases Bulgarians would write *лю*, *ня*, etc.

In my own personal writing though, I usually mix modern Bulgarian and Macedonian Cyrillic.
So in my texts you could come across *Џ, Ѕ, Й, Я, Ъ* in the same sentence.
Let's just say that I'm a bit odd.


----------



## Kartof

> I *prefer* using Slavic runes, but as there is no credible source containing them, their use would be based on nothing more than mere speculation.



How can your first preference be a writing system that hasn't even been fully attested and a written example hasn't been discovered?


----------



## Bog Svarog

Kartof said:


> How can your first preference be a writing system that hasn't even been fully attested and a written example hasn't been discovered?


Pay note to the little part containing the things about "but as there is no credible source containing them".

You are basically repeating my words.


----------



## Kartof

Bog Svarog said:


> Pay note to the little part containing the things about "but as there is no credible source containing them".
> 
> You are basically repeating my words.



What I meant to say was that you don't even know if the Slavs had any writing before the creation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic, meaning your first preference could be no writing at all.


----------



## Bog Svarog

Kartof said:


> What I meant to say was that you don't even know if the Slavs had any writing before the creation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic, meaning your first preference could be no writing at all.


Well, no problem, as I have a solution to that!

* I'm a Slav
* I can come up with runes
There you go! Slavic runes


----------



## Orlin

Здравейте, добре дошли на форума, Kartof! Ще отговоря на български, тъй като и той Ви е роден език. (Между впрочем, интересно ми е как и българският, и английският са Ви родни езици. Ако желаете, може да ми отговорите.)
Можем да класифицираме славянскте езици според официалната им писменост така:
1. Официално използващи само кирилицата - източнославянските, български, македонски. При тях под различна форма се използва и латиницата при *неофициална електронна комуникация *(SMS, електронна поща), но това по никакъв начин не вещае скорошна промяна на официалното писмо.
2. При които и кирилицата, и латиницата са официални писма - сръбски, босненски, черногорски. Доколкото знам, в сръбския език кирилицата се използва достатъчно често, макар и някак да губи позиции (донякъде под влиянието на съвременните информационни технологии, донякъде по други причини), а в босненския и черногорския вече е доста рядка, макар и съвсем общоприета и позната.
3. Използващи само латиница - хърватски, словенски, западнославянските езици.


----------



## Arath

I also prefer the Bulgarian alphabet before the orthographic reform, with some additions. That reform was completely useless and unnecessary. I'll give an example of how I prefer written Bulgarian to look like by rewriting a previous post in this thread:



Orlin said:


> Здравѣйте, добърѣ дошъли на форума, Kartof! Ще отговорѭ на български, тъй като и той Ви е родьнъ ѩзикъ. (Между впрочемъ, интересьно ми е какъ и българскиятъ, и английскиятъ сѫ Ви родьни ѩзици. Ако желаете, може да ми отговорите.)
> Можемъ да класифицираме славянскитѣ ѩзици спорѧдъ официальната имъ писменость така:
> 1. Официально използващи само кирилицата - източьнославянскитѣ, български,  македонски. При тѣхъ подъ различьна форма сѧ използва и латиницата при *неофициальна електроньна комуникация *(SMS, електроньна поща), но това по никакъвъ начинъ не вещае скорошьна промѣна на официальното писмо.
> 2. При които и кирилицата, и латиницата сѫ официальни писма - сръбски,  босненски, черьногорски. Доколкото знамъ, въ сръбския ѩзикъ кирилицата сѧ  използва достатъчьно чѧсто, макаръ и нѣкакъ да губи позиции (донѣкѫдѣ подъ  влиянието на съврѣменьнитѣ информационьни технологии, донѣкѫдѣ по други  причини), а въ босненския и черьногорския вече е доста рѣдъка, макаръ и  съвсемъ общоприета и позната.
> 3. Използващи само латиница - хърватски, словенски, западьнославянскитѣ ѩзици.


----------



## Hafen

Personally, I prefer cyrillic, especially in handwriting because it looks more elegant and sophisticated. However, it has its foibles, especially on the internet (many sites do not recognize it and many people receive a bunch of hieroglyphs when I write them e-mail in cyrillic).


----------



## Sobakus

In Russian using Latin script (referred to as транслит) is often understood as a sign of disrespect to the reader and most people won't even try to read it, for the most part because many траслитчики use such a horrible transliteration system that your brain physically hurts when you try reading it. Replacing ч with 4, ш with 6 etc is what infuriates the most. Honestly, it's much easier to read Ukrainian. And also because the writer was lazy enough not to use one of the many automatic transliteration services available. We generally don't have any problems with sites, because most Russians don't venture outside the Russian web space and if they do, it's to such places as YouTube that support the Cyrillic.

  As far as I know, the situation is basically the same with Ukrainian, and in Belarusian they have an unofficial Latin script which is mostly used by people with nationalistic and pro-Rzeczpospolitan attitudes (as is the language itself, unfortunately).


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Arath said:


> I also prefer the Bulgarian alphabet before the orthographic reform, with some additions. That reform was completely useless and unnecessary. I'll give an example of how I prefer written Bulgarian to look like by rewriting a previous post in this thread:
> 
> 
> Orlin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Здравѣйте, добърѣ дошъли на форума, Kartof! Ще отговорѭ на български, тъй като и той Ви е родьнъ ѩзикъ.(Между впрочемъ, интересьно ми е какъ и българскиятъ, и английскиятъ сѫ Ви родьни ѩзици. Ако желаете, може да ми отговорите.)
> Можемъ да класифицираме славянскитѣ ѩзици спорѧдъ официальната им писменость така:
> 1. Официально използващи само кирилицата - източьнославянскитѣ, български, македонски. При тѣхъ подъ различьна форма сѧ използва и латиницата при *неофициальна електроньна комуникация *(SMS, електроньна поща), но това по никакъвъ начинъ не вещае скорошьна промѣна на официальното писмо.
> 2. При които и кирилицата, и латиницата сѫ официальни писма - сръбски, босненски, черьногорски. Доколкото знамъ, въ сръбския ѩзикъ кирилицата сѧ използва достатъчьно чѧсто, макаръ и нѣкакъ да губи позиции (донѣкѫдѣ подъ влиянието на съврѣменьнитѣ информационьни технологии, донѣкѫдѣ по други причини), а въ босненския и черьногорския вече е доста рѣдъка, макаръ и съвсемъ общоприета и позната.
> 3. Използващи само латиница - хърватски, словенски, западьнославянскитѣ ѩзици.
Click to expand...


Напоминает мне русскую орфографию в словаре Даля (19-ый век) с использованием букв редких уже во время его составления.

I love the Cyrillic alphabet not only for esthetical reasons, but also because it is so wonderfully phonetic, and I hate using the Latin alphabet when writing Russian (although sometimes I have to) because it feels clumsy and inadequate to the phonetics of the language - I'm not really happy even when using the official or scientific transliteration when I have to write Russian names in texts written in languages using the Latin alphabet. Sometimes, when I have the possibility, I even insert them in Cyrillic spelling into texts written in Latin alphabet.
For similar reasons I don't like much the etymological spelling in Polish, although it permits me to establish correspondences between Polish letters and Russian sounds/letters. Neither do I like using digraphs in Slavic languages. An extreme case is the famous Russian dish борщ: the German transcription uses 7 (seven !!!) letters for "щ": Borschtsch, "sch" corresponding to "ш" and "tsch" corresponding to "ч": "шч" -> "щ".


----------



## Kartof

Orlin said:


> Здравейте, добре дошли на форума, Kartof! Ще отговоря на български, тъй като и той Ви е роден език. (Между впрочем, интересно ми е как и българският, и английският са Ви родни езици. Ако желаете, може да ми отговорите.)


Благодаря за Вашият отговор!

И български и английски са ми родни езици защото първият ми език е български и горе долу владеях езика преди да завърша четери години.  От тогава нататък използвах английски в училищи и с приятели и български само използвах със семейството си.  В Америка, много рядко имам шанс да използвам български.  Английски със сигурност владея най-добре обаче почнах в последните години да си поправям българският.  Сложих и двата езика като родните ми езика защото знам английски най-добре обаче в действителност български ми е родният език.

Моля Ви се, нормално нямам шанс да пиша на български, не се срамувайте да ми поправите грешките!


----------



## Orlin

Kartof said:


> Благодаря за Вашия (кратък член!) отговор!
> 
> И български, и английски са ми родни езици, защото първият ми език е български и горе долу владеех езика, преди да навърша четири години. Оттогава нататък използвах английски в училище и с приятели и български използвах само в семейството си. В Америка много рядко имам шанс да използвам български. Английски със сигурност владея най-добре, обаче ("но" е по-добре) почнах в последните години да си поправям българския (кратък член!). Сложих ("Поставих" е по-добре) и двата езика като родни, защото знам английски най-добре, обаче ("но" е по-добре) в действителност българският ми е родният език.
> 
> Моля Ви се, нормално нямам шанс да пиша на български, не се срамувайте да ми поправите (ако имате предвид не само еднократно да поправя, използвайте несвършен вид - "поправяте") грешките!


Вие пишете на български съвсем приемливо, грешките не са толкова значителни!
Аз смятам, че на български трябва да се пише на кирилица не само поради традицията и по естетични причини, но и поради това, че писането на латиница създава затруднения при четене, защото това е неофициално писмо и всеки пише, както му дойде (писането на български с латински букви често се нарича на жаргон подигравателно "шльокавица", "маймуница" или "методица"; за да се избегне това, на много български интернет форуми има изрична препоръка да се пише *на* *кирилица*).


----------



## iobyo

Macedonian is written exclusively in Cyrillic, so there's no question of preference for us. But yes, Latin is used for transliteration and when Cyrillic isn't available or when one is too lazy to switch to it (chat, etc.).

The only truly biscriptal language is Serbian as far as I know.


----------



## Bog Svarog

iobyo said:


> Macedonian is written exclusively in Cyrillic, so there's no question of preference for us.


*This is not true.*
Whatever the "official" policy is, is of no practical meaning whatsoever.

I can say, *and with the strongest confidence*, that Macedonian is *not* written exclusively in Cyrillic. Even when it's very easy to do so, and would be "better", a lot of Macedonians would just use the Latin script instead.

Take a look at a random Macedonian forum: http://forum.idividi.com.mk/forum_posts.asp?TID=8798
Note how Cyrillic and Latin are used concurrently?
It's exactly like this in everyday life as well.
Besides: we can have any preference we want; what would make you think we can not have a preference? Odd...

The "official" policy can dictate whatever it wants, but the REALITY is what matters here.
The only difference between Macedonia and Serbia in this case, is that the Serbian government "admits" that the population uses both scripts, whereas the Macedonian one does not.

Macedonian = biscriptal.


----------



## iobyo

Bog Svarog said:


> Take a look at a random Macedonian forum: http://forum.idividi.com.mk/forum_posts.asp?TID=8798



But that's an Internet forum...



Bog Svarog said:


> It's exactly like this in everyday life as well.



It really isn't.




Bog Svarog said:


> Besides: we can have any preference we want; what would make you think we can not have a preference? Odd...



Sure, an individual can use whatever script they choose. Katakana even. The Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet was design purposefully for the Macedonian language and it is the only accepted script for that language, everything else is a situational compromise.



Bog Svarog said:


> The only difference between Macedonia and Serbia in this case, is that  the Serbian government "admits" that the population uses both scripts,  whereas the Macedonian one does not.



The regulatory body of the Serbian language allows for both. The government ministers have nothing to do with this. The orthographic manuals are prepared by linguists in both countries.


----------



## Bog Svarog

iobyo said:


> But that's an Internet forum...


Your point being?



> It really isn't.


Yes, it really is.
I know very well what daily life is about (as I'm a part of it), and if I see the Latin script being used around me in daily life, then it is being used in daily life, period.



> Sure, an individual can use whatever script they choose. Katakana even.


The point here is that *every* Macedonian can write and read Macedonian in the Latin script, whereas not a single Macedonian alive can write it in the Katakana script.



> and it is the only accepted script for that language,


No, it is not, as evidenced by every living person around me, that freely uses the Latin script at will.
And who is this mysterious entity that accepts only the Cyrillic? Is it you? You are the embodiment of all Macedonians?
I really think you are confusing Macedonia with Bulgaria...



> everything else is a situational compromise.


No, not even close.
- a personal preferance based on esthetics (like my mother, who almost never writes in Cyrillic)
- a personal preferance influenced by fashion (it's the "Western" script, so more modern/trendy and what not, so especially young people will feel like using it)



> The regulatory body of the Serbian language allows for both. The government ministers have nothing to do with this. The orthographic manuals are prepared by linguists in both countries.


What you fail to see, is that this "regulatory body" isn't really of any importance to the average Joe.
The Macedonian regulatory body also says that only Cyrillic should be used, but Macedonians in general couldn't care less, as they use *both* whenever they want.
This results into the statement "Cyrillic is the only allowed script for Macedonian" being quite non-factual.
The only time when I'm forced to use the Cyrillic script, is when I fill in forms for government institutions, and that's about it.

Macedonian has been a biscriptal language for a long time, and will only become more widespread biscriptal with time.


----------



## Kartof

Orlin said:


> Вие пишете на български съвсем приемливо, грешките не са толкова значителни!
> Аз смятам, че на български трябва да се пише на кирилица не само поради традицията и по естетични причини, но и поради това, че писането на латиница създава затруднения при четене, защото това е неофициално писмо и всеки пише, както му дойде (писането на български с латински букви често се нарича на жаргон подигравателно "шльокавица", "маймуница" или "методица"; за да се избегне това, на много български интернет форуми има изрична препоръка да се пише *на* *кирилица*).



Благодаря Ви, за Вашати поправки.  Както виждате, най-много греша с пунктуацията ми, и трабва да практикувам да пиша повече. 



Bog Svarog said:


> Macedonian has been a biscriptal language for a long time, and will only become more widespread biscriptal with time.



If that's really true, I really hope it doesn't happen to Bulgarian any time soon.


----------



## Arath

Bog Svarog said:


> Your point being?
> I know very well what daily life is about (as I'm a part of it), and if I see the Latin script being used around me in daily life, then it is being used in daily life, period.



I would like to know if Macedonians are consistent in using the Latin script, because when Bulgarians write in it, different people use different Latin letters for the same Cyrillic letter, even one person sometimes uses different Latin letters for the same Cyrillic one. That makes reading quite difficult and slow. Even people who prefer to use the Latin script on the Internet or in SMS admit that reading in Cyrillic is many times faster and easier.




Kartof said:


> If that's really true, I really hope it doesn't happen to Bulgarian any time soon.



You can rest assured that that won't happen any time soon. Among all the  reasons there is a pragmatic one: Bulgarian written in Latin script  takes more paper, because of the digraphs that correspond to single  letters in Cyrillic. You can see it for yourself. Convert a Bulgarian  text using the official transliteration and see how much longer it  becomes.


----------



## Orlin

Наистина сериозен проблем е това, че писането на български на литиница *не* е стандартизирано и вече почти година със закон поне е решен проблемът с транслитерацията, която беше доста хаотична, но това *не* означава, че се въвежда стандарт за употребата на латиницата за писане на български въобще.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

MOD NOTE: Please keep the discussion in English from now on. We've been very tolerant recently, but we will now enforce our language rule more strictly.


----------



## nonik

You can rest assured that that won't happen any time soon. Among all the reasons there is a pragmatic one: Bulgarian written in Latin script takes more paper, because of the digraphs that correspond to single letters in Cyrillic. You can see it for yourself. Convert a Bulgarian text using the official transliteration and see how much longer it becomes.


So, it is merelly problem of transliterations ? maybe it could be done better )


----------



## DarkChild

nonik said:


> You can rest assured that that won't happen any time soon. Among all the reasons there is a pragmatic one: Bulgarian written in Latin script takes more paper, because of the digraphs that correspond to single letters in Cyrillic. You can see it for yourself. Convert a Bulgarian text using the official transliteration and see how much longer it becomes.
> 
> 
> So, it is merelly problem of transliterations ? maybe it could be done better )


No, also people will not want to write in Latin because it's a foreign alphabet. Bulgarians are very proud of their own alphabet.


----------



## yael*

iobyo said:


> The only truly biscriptal language is Serbian as far as I know.



Well, I hope that Bosnian, Croatian and Montenegrin are still biscriptal too. Why would they ban Cyrillic if they already know it? I am not sure though if it is still taught in school. I am pretty sure it is taught in Republika Srpska (one of two political entities in Bosnia and and Herzegovina) - I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is taught as the first alphabet, i.e. in the first year of the primary school, while the latin script is usually taught in the secon as we did (and as they still do in Serbia). 
however, the choice of the script was much related to religion, therefore the Montenegrin should also (at least, theoretically) give precedence to the Cyrillic script. 

Personally, I prefer the Latin script when writing, have no preferences in reading. And, aesthetic wisely... well, I think Cyrillics looks more elegant.

Cheers


----------



## nonik

DarkChild said:


> No, also people will not want to write in Latin because it's a foreign alphabet. Bulgarians are very proud of their own alphabet.
> 
> Yeah, it is good to be proud, but I was responding about the problem, that the same text in latinic is longer then in cyrilic, because of transliteration.


----------



## Duya

nonik said:


> You can rest assured that that won't happen any time soon. Among all the reasons there is a pragmatic one: Bulgarian written in Latin script takes more paper



Mild off topic: and for how long will paper continue to be the most important media? Bytes and pixels are cheap...

Latin might use more glyphs, but the letters are more narrow on an average variable-width font (compare i, j, l, t, sh with и, й, л, т, ш). So it's more expensive by bytes, but the same or less by pixels. And, again, bytes and pixels are cheap...

I'm not saying that Latin will prevail in Bulgarian any time soon, just that your reasons are not particularly appealing.


----------



## Twinkle_Ukraine

The Ukrainian language uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Using the Latin alphabet is only acceptable when a person does not have a possibility to use the Cyrillic alphabet, for example, being abroad. But even in that case there are ways out like this website.


----------



## Arath

I think it's fair to assume that when all writing systems were developed, they were designed to be aesthetically pleasing. That's why when a language uses a script that was not specifically developed for it, it doesn't look very beautiful. I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just my personal taste, but I don't think that the Slavic languages using the Latin script look very good, especially Polish and Czech, with all these diacritical marks around the letters.

I would like to know what other people think. For example, speakers of non-Slavic languages, who use the Latin script, do you think that Slavic languages look good in the Latin script? Or people not familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet, how does it look to you?

I've provided a few examples (same text, same font):


----------



## DenisBiH

Arath said:


> I think it's fair to assume that when all writing systems were developed, they were designed to be aesthetically pleasing. That's why when a language uses a script that was not specifically developed for it, it doesn't look very beautiful. I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just my personal taste, but I don't think that the Slavic languages using the Latin script look very good, especially Polish and Czech, with all these diacritical marks around the letters.




Erm, Czech letters with diacritics later adopted by many of us were originally developed for Czech by a Czech.


----------



## Arath

DenisBiH said:


> Erm, Czech letters with diacritics later adopted by many of us were originally developed for Czech by a Czech.


He had to develop them because he was adopting the Latin alphabet for Slavic use. If he was designing a new alphabet he wouldn't have need diacritical marks. I mean that to me letters look cumbersome with all kinds of glyphs around and over them.


----------



## DenisBiH

Arath said:


> He had to develop them because he was adopting the Latin alphabet for Slavic use. If he was designing a new alphabet he wouldn't have need diacritical marks. I mean that to me letters look cumbersome with all kinds of glyphs around and over them.



Well, the Cyrillic alphabet isn't exactly original, it itself is an adaption of Greek alphabet for Slavic use. As for aesthetics, I think the old adage applies - de gustibus...


----------



## Arath

DenisBiH said:


> Well, the Cyrillic alphabet isn't exactly original, it itself is an adaption of Greek alphabet for Slavic use. As for aesthetics, I think the old adage applies - de gustibus...


Yes, but by adding new letters to represent sounds, that didn't exist in the Greek phonology, not by putting diacritics over Greek letters. And I specifically said in my original post - this is my personal taste and I would like to know what that of other people is.


----------



## DenisBiH

Arath said:


> Yes, but by adding new letters to represent sounds, that didn't exist in  the Greek phonology, not by putting diacritics over Greek letters.



Ok, if you consider that important. But some modern Slavic languages also use diacritics in their Cyrillic alphabets. Doesn't Bulgarian have й?



Arath said:


> And I specifically said in my original post - this is my personal taste and I would like to know what that of other people is.



Of course, I was just answering your question by giving my own opinion.


----------



## DarkChild

DenisBiH said:


> Doesn't Bulgarian have й?


That's not really a diacritic.


----------



## DenisBiH

DarkChild said:


> That's not really a diacritic.



What is it then?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

DenisBiH said:


> Ok, if you consider that important. But some modern Slavic languages also use diacritics in their Cyrillic alphabets. Doesn't Bulgarian have й?


Belarusian alphabets also uses ў.
The letter Ы is actually a ligature.
Щ in Bulgarian - a unique case, I think - represents two different consonants which are clearly distinguishable: ш and т. In Russian, it represents one sound.


----------



## Arath

DenisBiH said:


> Of course, I was just answering your question by giving my own opinion.


I didn't quite get your opinion. Do you like how Slavic languages look written in the Latin script? What about the Cyrillic alphabet? I've also added how Bulgarian looks like using the official transliteration. Which one looks more aesthetically pleasing to you - the Cyrillic version or the transliterated?


----------



## DarkChild

DenisBiH said:


> What is it then?


Is the dot in "i" a diacritic?


----------



## iobyo

Arath said:


> I would like to know if Macedonians are consistent in using the Latin script, because when Bulgarians write in it, different people use different Latin letters for the same Cyrillic letter, even one person sometimes uses different Latin letters for the same Cyrillic one. That makes reading quite difficult and slow. Even people who prefer to use the Latin script on the Internet or in SMS admit that reading in Cyrillic is many times faster and easier.



My personal observation is that it's only a little more consistent than Bulgarian practice; most follow the BCS convention only without diacritics (also common among BCS speakers online). There is a fair bit of variety when it comes to representing _ќ_ and _ѓ_ (usually _k/g_, but also _kj/gj_, and very, very rarely _c/ć/dj/đ_). I have noticed a 'resurgence' of Cyrillic in chat and social networking sites because now, I'm assuming—as opposed to 10 years ago—it's considerably easier to install a Cyrillic keyboard. A little over half of the mobile phones on sale come with a Macedonian interface pre-installed, but SMS messages are always in Latin; my smartphone has Cyrillic but I always text in Latin because I can't be sure if the receiver's phone has Cyrillic as well. This was unusual to my Russian visitors who only texted each other in Cyrillic.


----------



## Reef Archer

Arath said:


> I would like to know what other people think. For example, speakers of non-Slavic languages, who use the Latin script, do you think that Slavic languages look good in the Latin script? Or people not familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet, how does it look to you?



I have serious doubts one can approach the matter entirely objective. Some of you already mentioned "the pride" factor. Others justify their preferences through all sorts of logical deductions based on historical or functional data - but everyone else's conclusion is somehow different, so it must be triggered by a mix of other prejudices we are almost never aware of.

The argument that puzzles me the most is the one concerning aesthetics.
Back in the 80's, I was always expecting with religiosity for that Yugoslavian kids' show, "Crtani film" to begin. The moment TVB made the announcement, my excitement reached it's climax. But then, if the screen had turned into this, half of my excitement suddenly disappeared. It was as if the Cyrillic letters spoiled all the fun of the show that hadn't even started yet. I reckon it was stupid, but that's the way it happened. And it was entirely subjective, of course, but the characters simply looked disturbingly ugly to me.
Now I never properly learned the Cyrillic alphabet - I simply deduced the equivalent of each Latin letter correlating them within the Serbian words I knew or presumed to be the correct translation while reading movie's subtitles. And that always required an extra effort of concentration - which, I suspect, was the reason of my adversity towards non-Latin text. I mean... if they had the possibility to choose, why would they choose the one I had trouble reading? It must have been a conspiracy against me, right?

So, to get back to your question - but please notice I am highly prejudicial; unintentionally, but still, prejudicial - I believe Serbian looks natural when written in Latin script. So do the Czech, Polish and Croatian languages. Since I don't understand Bulgarian, this particular one has always seemed like the writing of a drunk Serb to me. Russian is the only one I can't imagine other than it has always been: exclusively Cyrillic.


----------



## Arath

Reef Archer said:


> Russian is the only one I can't imagine other than it has always been: exclusively Cyrillic.



How you can imagine Bulgarian written in the Latin script is a mystery to me, since it also has always been exclusively Cyrillic.


----------



## Reef Archer

Well, look at the Harry Potter converted translation you provided yourself.
No stretch of imagination at all.
My point was, and I apologize for my ignorance once more, Bulgarian itself seems strange to me either way it is written, because I do not understand it - but, worse than that, I can't help but relating it to Serbian. So it looks like broken Serbian. Even though I am aware it is not.


----------



## Arath

Reef Archer said:


> Well, look at the Harry Potter converted translation you provided yourself.
> No stretch of imagination at all.
> My point was, and I apologize for my ignorance once more, Bulgarian itself seems strange to me either way it is written, because I do not understand it - but, worse than that, I can't help but relating it to Serbian. So it looks like broken Serbian. Even though I am aware it is not.



This is the official transliteration, Russian also has one. It's strange to me why you're comparing Serbian and Bulgarian, when Bulgarian has much more in common with Russian, they are orthographically more similar and much more mutually intelligible than Serbian and Bulgarian. You can see it in the examples I've given.


----------



## Reef Archer

Precisely. I don't know Russian either.
So they all look great if you contemplate them the way you contemplate a picture. The moment you cling to something you know (Serbian, in my case), the mind begins to weigh all the others through correlation, through comparison.
Had I known Russian, the rest would have been filtered through that standard.


----------



## werrr

Arath said:


> I think it's fair to assume that when all writing systems were developed, they were designed to be aesthetically pleasing. That's why when a language uses a script that was not specifically developed for it, it doesn't look very beautiful.


You assume wrong. The whole idea behind using alphabet is not to represent sounds using some pleasing symbols, but to represent all sounds in the language with a few symbols.

Aesthetics is of major concern when devoloping a typeface for the script.



> I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just my personal taste, but I don't think that the Slavic languages using the Latin script look very good, especially Polish and Czech, with all these diacritical marks around the letters.


Czech uses diacritics due to abundance of phones in Czech, not due to Latin script. The systematical representation of sounds is simply more practical than thoughtless enumeration of all sounds.

Should Czech addopt Cyrillic, it would face the very same problems as with Latin script.



DenisBiH said:


> Erm, Czech letters with diacritics later adopted by many of us were originally developed for Czech by a Czech.


The origin of Czech spelling is not known. The story about Jan Hus inventing it is nothing but unbased myth.



Arath said:


> He had to develop them because he was adopting the Latin alphabet for Slavic use. If he was designing a new alphabet he wouldn't have need diacritical marks. I mean that to me letters look cumbersome with all kinds of glyphs around and over them.


No, that was not a must when addopting Latin script, it was a clever phonetical simplification of the mere concept of alphabet. The diacritics was introduced to systematically distinguish long vowels and palatalized consonants.



Arath said:


> Yes, but by adding new letters to represent sounds, that didn't exist in the Greek phonology, not by putting diacritics over Greek letters. And I specifically said in my original post - this is my personal taste and I would like to know what that of other people is.


With the same logic you could advocate syllabary over alphabet complaining about symbols for nuclei surrounded by cumbersome symbols (for onset and coda).



Kartof said:


> What I meant to say was that you don't even know if the Slavs had any writing before the creation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic, meaning your first preference could be no writing at all.


There were Slavs using Latin and Greek prior the creation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic.



Angelo di fuoco said:


> ...I hate using the Latin alphabet when writing Russian (although sometimes I have to) because it feels clumsy and inadequate to the phonetics of the language - I'm not really happy even when using the official or scientific transliteration when I have to write Russian names in texts written in languages using the Latin alphabet.


 That's because you don't use the Latin alphabet, you misuse it as the English do.  



> An extreme case is the famous Russian dish борщ: the German transcription uses 7 (seven !!!) letters for "щ": Borschtsch, "sch" corresponding to "ш" and "tsch" corresponding to "ч": "шч" -> "щ".


Well done, Germans!!! German spelling has to suit the needs of the phonology of German. Exceptional words like this one should be written in exceptional way.



nonik said:


> You can rest assured that that won't happen any time soon. Among all the reasons there is a pragmatic one: Bulgarian written in Latin script takes more paper, because of the digraphs that correspond to single letters in Cyrillic. You can see it for yourself. Convert a Bulgarian text using the official transliteration and see how much longer it becomes.
> 
> So, it is merelly problem of transliterations ? maybe it could be done better )


You got it right, nonik! Most of the people here are stuck with a particular way of transliteration which suits other languages instead of considering the possibility to properly adjust a script, be it Latin or any other, to the needs of their own language.


----------



## Arath

werrr said:


> You assume wrong. The whole idea behind using alphabet is not to represent sounds using some pleasing symbols, but to represent all sounds in the language with a few symbols.



I don't assume wrong, you just seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of Calligraphy. I don't have the time to translate my textbook for you, but you can read the article on Wikipedia.



werrr said:


> Czech uses diacritics due to abundance of phones in Czech, not due to Latin script. The systematical representation of sounds is simply more practical than thoughtless enumeration of all sounds.
> 
> Should Czech addopt Cyrillic, it would face the very same problems as with Latin script.
> 
> The  diacritics was introduced to systematically distinguish long vowels and  palatalized consonants.



The Cyrillic alphabet has ways of representing palatalized consonants without resorting to diacritics or new individual letters to represent the different sounds.

I've just thought of a few other questions. How difficult are diacritics for handwriting, because they are separated from the letters and are so small that it might be difficult to distinguish them? The cursive Cyrillic style we use in Bulgaria for handwriting allows us to write a word without raising the pen from the paper. I hope you don't tell me that I assume wrong again but I think that it's faster and easier to write letters without diacritics. Many native English speakers forget to dot their i's and cross their t's. How is the situation with the Czech language? Do you use cursive for handwriting? Do you forget sometimes to put diacritics? How difficult is it to use a keyboard layout with diacritics? I've heard and seen that sometimes BCS speakers forget to use diacritics when they write on the Internet. Is this true for Czech speakers? Does it make it difficult to read?


----------



## yael*

Arath said:


> I've heard and seen that sometimes BCS speakers forget to use diacritics when they write in the Internet. Is this true for Czech speakers? Does it make difficult to read?



It's not that we forget to use them, it's that more often than not, we have the US keyboard layout.  If you use the specific writing programs, you can insert symbols, but that's hardly possible when writing in the internet.  Hence you can opt for just "forget" them and let the reader understand from the context or use the English transliteration rules.  I think most of the people choose the first option.  Anyway, whatever the choice, it's always easy to understand.  The only problem I have encountered was the writing of the personal names (example: Sarić vs. šarić, where ć is never a problem, but š/s is not given for granted... by the way I can't find the capital š in this forum). 

As far as the usage of Cyrillic vs. Latin script is concerned, I think that Serbian looks equally good in both scripts, I really don't have any preference.  We also use the cursive Cyrillic that allows us to write a word - almost - without raising the pen from the paper, that is if the word doesn't contain letters ć, đ, dž, p and t, but I find it still faster and easier to write in latin script.  Serbian is biscriptal, so I guess this can be considered a kind of empirical assumption... 

And to reply to Reef Archer (I apologize I don't know how to post with the multiple quotes) - it's funny, Bulgarian and Macedonian sometimes look like broken Serbian to me too, but that's just due to the fact that they don't have declinations and that reminds me on our southern dialects (from Niš downwards).


----------



## VelikiMag

Arath said:


> I've just thought of a few other questions. How difficult are diacritics for handwriting, because they are separated from the letters and are so small that it might be difficult to distinguish them? The cursive Cyrillic style we use in Bulgaria for handwriting allows us to write a word without raising the pen from the paper. I hope you don't tell me that I assume wrong again but I think that it's faster and easier to write letters without diacritics.


Serbian handwritten cyrillic has lowercase letters _г_, _п_, _т_ and sometimes _ш_ written with a macron, letters _ћ_ and _ђ_ with a stroke, and letter _џ_ with a small curve below. So you must raise the pen while writing. Anyway, not all letters can be written in one move (at least I can not), so raising the pen is imminent again.

About diacritics in Latin, I must admit that I never thought about it in the way you put it here. At least as far as BCS script is concerned. Being that Bulgarian isn't written in Latin, and that English doesn't have diacritics like other languages, I think you just aren't (enough) used to them. But if you became literate and received education in a language which is written with diacritics, it becomes as simple as anything else. You just don't analyze letters, unless you have some special or scientific purpose for doing it. And if we are talking about complexity of writing diacritics in Slavic languages, just take a look at any Vietnamese text, there are plenty of them on Wikipedia. I don't think it gets harder than that in a Latin-based script.


----------



## yael*

Oh, yes I forgot the G... but anyway, I raise hand with F and ž as well and many capital letters like B and R, etc.  My Cyrillic writing is not fast, if I'm in a hurry, I definitely use the Latin script. 

VelikiMag, are the new characters already in use in Montenegrin? You have now diacritics in Cyrillic as well, don't you?


----------



## VelikiMag

yael* said:


> VelikiMag, are the new characters already in use in Montenegrin? You have now diacritics in Cyrillic as well, don't you?


Yes, two additional letters now exist, ́́́с and ́́́з which represent iotated с and з. I think the new Montenegrin alphabet will be taught in schools from this year on. There are still some debates going on in the Parliament, and not everyting is clear yet. What I do know is that using these two letters as well as other new features will be optional. I believe that ́́́с will be in common use among younger generations cause now they can write exactly the sound they pronounce and it isn't considered incorrect anymore. ́́́з on the other hand exists only in few extreme cases and it won't be seen too often I guess.


----------



## yael*

And what about the choice of the script?  I was told that the Latin alphabet will be preferred to the Cyrillic (i.e. it will be thought in schools as the first script and used in the documents etc). Is that true?  

What I was expecting to happen was some kind of merging of č & ć and dž & đ in Croatian and Bosnian, as most of the speakers do not distinguish the sound and often confuse them in writing... I would have never expected additional characters... 
Will that iotated s used in the word "sutra"?


----------



## VelikiMag

yael* said:


> And what about the choice of the script?  I was told that the Latin alphabet will be preferred to the Cyrillic (i.e. it will be thought in schools as the first script and used in the documents etc). Is that true?


The choice of the script will be optional, like it always was. Both scripts will be taught in schools, I don't know which will be first and which second. Until recently Cyrillic was first and Latin was second, it will probably stay that way. And about official documents, there isn't any rule, it will again depend on the preference of those who are writing them. Unless it is required for some reason to write exclusively in the same script.
The problem of Latin dominance is however of different nature. Kids are nowadays using computers before they start going to school. And Latin script on internet is entirely dominant. So it somehow becomes more natural for them to use it. It is not only a problem in Montenegro, it is a big problem in Serbia as well. The saddest thing is that kids started to write _w_ instead of _v_, _sh_ and _ch_ instead of _š_ and _č_, _x_ instead of _ks_, etc. So that's something our educational systems must deal with.
In elementary school I was writting in Cyrillic. When I started secondary school, I switched entirely to Latin and it remained like that up to this day. The reason for that was that I was learning English, German and Latin languages, so I didn't want to switch between scripts all the time. Also, subjects like maths, chemistry or physics are full of Latin symbols, so it was just more convenient to write everything in Latin.



yael* said:


> Will that iotated s used in the word "sutra"?


Yes, the word _śutra_ is probably the most widespread example. Apparently, _ś _can almost always substitute _sj_, though not all such words sound too natural to me. That is just my opinion, but local dialects vary to a significant degree.


----------



## yael*

I believe that being biscriptal is a great thing about BSC, although I am not sure if Croatian is still considered biscriptal.  It's really sad that the use of Cyrillic became a political issue and I hope we will never ban the Latin script for political reasons.  What do you ever gain by learning less for whatever the reason may be...  The preferred script in Serbia is Cyrillic and I am fine with having the ID card, diplomas, certificates and so on in Cyrillic script, I an not happy with the Cyrillics only on the cover of the passport, but let it be, as far as we have a possibility to choose the script we use in everyday life.
The problem of sms, T9 o social network orthography is a widespread problem; we have it in Italian as well (k in lieu of ch or c, + in lieu of più, 6 in lieu of sei - 2. person sing of to be, etc.).  Let alone in English.  It is sad and it's annoying...  Although, I find that QQLL (in Serbian) is hilarious.


----------



## VelikiMag

yael* said:


> The preferred script in Serbia is Cyrillic and I am fine with having the ID card, diplomas, certificates and so on in Cyrillic script


This reminded me of a problem which was reported by more than few people from Serbia. As you know, for almost two years Serbian citizens are allowed to travel to EU without visas, and because of that they do it more often than before. But it is not always convenient to carry your passport everywhere with you. They are too large to fit in smaller pockets, and if you have some handbag, you might lose it or someone might steal it when they see that you are a tourist. So it is much safer to leave your passports in your hotel or some other place where you are staying. Cause if you lose it while abroad, you are in a very serious problem. However, you must have some document with you, whether you are stopped by police or you are in any other situation where you may want to or you are asked to prove your identity. For that reason people around Europe have ID cards, but Serbian ID card is invalid because it is in Cyrillic and nobody can read your data: name, surname, place of birth, address, and so on. So then you would have to have your passport with you.
The funniest thing is that Latin ID cards exist, but they are reserved for national minorities in Serbia (Croats, Bosniaks, Hungarians, etc.). So if you want one, you must prove that you are a national minority, as they won't give it to you on your personal request.


----------



## yael*

Do the national minorities have that option for the passport as well (we have it in Cyrillic, English and French)?
I don't know if the new ID cards are in Latin script or Cyrillic, I assume the latter.  I know that you can choose if you want it with the chip (and decide what personal info you want to be written on it) or without it.  I still have my Cyrillic booklet fulfilled on a Latin script typewriter.   I don't live in Serbia and I never have enough time to do the paperwork when I happen to be there.  However, I was told that we are supposed to be allowed to travel within Schengen with ID cards in the near future... so if they have decided to make them in Cyrillic, I don't follow their logic.  But then again, I don't understand why we have a crown in the national coat of arms etc.


----------



## VelikiMag

yael* said:


> Do the national minorities have that option for the passport as well (we have it in Cyrillic, English and French)?


No. It is indeed printed in Serbian Cyrillic, English and French, but personal data is in Serbian Latin. Link



yael* said:


> I don't know if the new ID cards are in Latin script or Cyrillic, I assume the latter.


Like I said, for Serbs they are in Cyrillic, others can choose. Link



yael* said:


> so if they have decided to make them in Cyrillic, I don't follow their logic.


No one does. It was important to someone that everything is in Cyrillic, probably because it is "more Serbian" than Latin script. And for potential benefits which people would have nobody really cares. They put there English as well, but personal data is in Cyrillic only. So an English speaking person wouldn't be able to read your name and surname for example.
Bulgaria is the only country in EU which uses Cyrillic script. But their ID cards are both in Bulgarian and in English, and all the personal data is also transliterated into Latin. Back in Serbia, someone just couldn't care less for that.
I doubt that travelling to Schengen area with only an ID card will be possible any soon. But when that happens, people who would like to use that commodity will have to return their brand new Cyrillic cards and pay for the new Latin ones, which will have to be available for everyone at that time. So the million dollar question remains: Why it isn't available now, from the start?


----------



## Arath

VelikiMag said:


> Bulgaria is the only country in EU which uses Cyrillic script. But their ID cards are both in Bulgarian and in English, and all the personal data is also transliterated into Latin.


My ID card was issued in 2007 when I was 18, and my personal data - address, where I was born, eye color, height, where my card was issued, is just in Bulgarian. It is not transliterated into Latin, nor translated into English.


----------



## VelikiMag

Arath said:


> My ID card was issued in 2007 when I was 18, and my personal data - address, where I was born, eye color, height, where my card was issued, is just in Bulgarian. It is not transliterated into Latin, nor translated into English.


But your name, surname and father's name on the front side are. So you can be easily identified if you go somewhere.


----------



## yael*

Well my name and personal data on the ID are in latin script. I have checked now. But the order is strange: the name of the place comes first, so it can be mistaken for name & surname. Like, name: Novi, surname: Sad, because the form is in Cyrillic and it has been fulfilled in Latin alphabet. 
The new one has the chip containing all the data, but I am not sure those chips can be read abroad. Anyway, they are issuing them so slowly, I won't have time to make the new one before I leave and the validity of the old ones has been extended.


----------



## trosheniorasi

Personally I prefer Cyrillic for Slavic languages for both historical reasons and the fact that it seems elegant.  I strongly dislike the West-Slavic Latin alphabets because of the diacritics (they just look so messy), but on the other hand I have an easier time reading Serbian in Latin rather than Cyrillic.

-The lack of understanding of Cyrillic in Europe (as part of the ID discussion) has created another annoyance to me and other Bulgarians. The regional city codes on the license plates of cars in Bulgarian are not allowed to contain Cyrillic letters that are not similar to Latin. For example for my hometown the licence plates would normally be ПК for Pernik, but are instead written as PK people don't really know how to read RK or ПК,. On the other hand some towns like Враца use ВР as would be in standard Bulgarian.


----------



## DarkChild

^^
The same is with Greek license plates.


----------



## trosheniorasi

I did some research and it turns out that all eastern European countries including Russia do that. (Off topic) Interestingly enough I've seen Iranian licence plates in Bulgaria with Arabic numerals.


----------



## DarkChild

trosheniorasi said:


> I did some research and it turns out that all eastern European countries including Russia do that. (Off topic) Interestingly enough I've seen Iranian licence plates in Bulgaria with Arabic numerals.


Btw, the PK for Pernik is actually Cyrillic and stands for Пе*р*ни*к, *and not *P*erni*k.

*I've seen those Iranian trucks too. I don't know how they enter their registration plates in the computers or on forms.


----------



## martinkunev

I think cyrillic is more suitable for the slavic languages as it was created for them. The latin based languages look very artificial and odd to me. 

It's really bad that cyrillic is gradually replaced by latin. Using latin for Bulgarian becomes very common and I imagine this process has gone much further in Serbia and Montenegro. Also Uzbekistan switched to latin and I think other countries in the region will follow soon.


----------



## DarkChild

martinkunev said:


> I think cyrillic is more suitable for the slavic languages as it was created for them. The latin based languages look very artificial and odd to me.
> 
> It's really bad that cyrillic is gradually replaced by latin. Using latin for Bulgarian becomes very common and I imagine this process has gone much further in Serbia and Montenegro. Also Uzbekistan switched to latin and I think other countries in the region will follow soon.



I don't quite agree. A few years ago Latin was more prevalent than now. For example, no self-respecting forum or website allows Latinized Bulgarian in posts/comments.


----------



## Azori

Arath said:


> How is the situation with the Czech language? Do you use cursive for handwriting? Do you forget sometimes to put diacritics? How difficult is it to use a keyboard layout with diacritics? I've heard and seen that sometimes BCS speakers forget to use diacritics when they write on the Internet. Is this true for Czech speakers? Does it make it difficult to read?


I know this is from an old post but thought I could reply as the questions haven't been answered yet (even if I don't speak Czech myself).

As for the Czech handwriting, as far as I know, up until recently only cursive was taught in Czech schools. This is what the alphabet looks like - without diacritics, and with diacritics - couldn't really find a good picture containing all the letters with diacritics but I guess one would get the idea; in Slovakia kids learn an alphabet that looks very much like the Czech one, except that there are some diacritics in Slovak that Czech doesn't have and vice versa. In 2010 a new script was introduced into (but not all) Czech schools, the so-called Comenia Script - which are basically block letters. Nowadays it's approved by the government so schools can choose which one they will teach (as the new script is optional).

Regarding diacritics, I should note that even though the Czech and Slovak languages do use diacritics, they are not always used - for instance - for the palatal consonants. In Slovak the consonants _d, t, n, l_ are pronounced as if spelled _ď, ť, ň, ľ_ before the vowels _e, i, í_ - so e.g. the word _kniha_ (book) is pronounced with a palatal _n (ň)_, i.e. as if spelled _kňiha_ - but this is not marked in writing. It's similar in Czech where the consonants _d, t, n_ are pronounced as palatal before the vowels _i, í_. There are however also exceptions to this rule.

As for the keyboard layout, I think it might not be the simplest to use but not very difficult, either. Many people omit the diacritics when typing on the Internet but not because they forget them but rather because they haven't learned to use the keyboard properly or think it's faster to type without them. Such texts are still legible for the most part.


----------



## Gnoj

Bog Svarog said:


> *This is not true.*
> Whatever the "official" policy is, is of no practical meaning whatsoever.
> 
> I can say, *and with the strongest confidence*, that Macedonian is *not* written exclusively in Cyrillic. Even when it's very easy to do so, and would be "better", a lot of Macedonians would just use the Latin script instead.
> 
> Take a look at a random Macedonian forum: http://forum.idividi.com.mk/forum_posts.asp?TID=8798
> Note how Cyrillic and Latin are used concurrently?
> It's exactly like this in everyday life as well.
> Besides: we can have any preference we want; what would make you think we can not have a preference? Odd...
> 
> Macedonian = biscriptal.



Can you summarize the Latin standard we use then??? Can we really call writing "c" for "ч", "c" for "ц" and sometimes "c" for "ќ" a standard? I can name at least two other Latin "standards" Macedonians use, all of which abound inconsistencies like the one I mentioned. Does that make Macedonian writing at least three-scriptal? As iobyo said, they are all a result of situational compromise - years ago, on Windows 95 for example there was no Macedonian layout (while there were Serbian, Bulgarian and Croatian ones). It's chaotic and it's frustrating that I sometimes need to type certain stuff in several different spellings in order to get as much as possible results in Google for instance, but not all of them at once. Personally, I think one of the reasons a lot of Macedonians don't switch to Cyrillic for writing in Macedonian is the annoying placing of the punctuation marks ;""„“) in the default Macedonian keyboard layout offered and the placing of letters like Ш, Ж, Џ, Ќ, Ѓ, Ѕ, Ѐ, Ѝ and Љ, which are awfully organized, completely disregarding the need for user convenience. I began using Cyrillic consistently only after I learned how to make my own keyboard layouts and I finally made my own one that doesn't force me to switch back to English when I want to type a simple smiley and then switch to Macedonian again.


----------

