Talk:Romanian Cyrillic alphabet

message: This page would be clearer if all languages had letters written in the same case. 惑乱 分からん 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was with a у. I got confused, given that no source bothers to present the actual alphabet, and I had to deduce it from pictures of Bolintineanu's text. Dahn 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it is /θ/ and probably just /θ/. It is hard to reconstruct how people pronounced Teodor and Teofil, but, especially since the learned were bound to know what the names were in Greek, spellings probably reflected the Greek phoneme which is virtually absent in Romanian. With the transitional alphabet, they prolly just didn't care anymore. Dahn 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But all the neighboring nations (Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, western Ukraine) as far as I know pronounce Greek loanwords with theta just as plain "t", even when written as Latin "th" or Cyrillic "Ѳ" in old spellings. Why not in Romanian as well? Kcmamu 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so do we. I gave T as the transliteration, but I guess that the original letter existed because it was associated with the sound. We have also had the "th" to stand for /θ/, but even that is read as a T. What I'm trying to say is that the Cyrillic letter was very likely supposed to be read as in Greek, or that such was its original mission. I guess the best way would be if we indicate that it stands for both /θ/ and /t/, by default (in theory, for /θ/; in practice, almost always, for /t/). Dahn 08:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope: this is how those shpaes look when they are not written in calligraphy. We can only approximate. Dahn 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about Ѕ with no value (but in fact dz), N, which is H here (wrong, it is simply N), the order is not the same and some characters do not have any corespondance in the Unicode.--Alex:Dan 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a style variation of the Н н, used in other slavic languages too. It evolved into an N ɴ, (I used coptic Ⲛ ⲛ), in some examples of transitional scripts, like the 1946 (2) one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayceman (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just looked through an 1828 essay by Ion Heliade Rădulescu (Gramatica Românească, republished by Albatros in Scrieri alese, 1978). It is an interesting source for this page in its entirety, because it deals with the inadequacies the alphabet had overall, but just a quick peek for now, so as to clarify an issue mentioned earlier. Page 173, my translation:
"Does one wish to smooth out the Romanians and render them delicate through the Ѳ, for so long made famous throughout Romanian books? That is why we learn that the language and people are not to be smoothed through the patching of language: they need ideas, information and experience in order to smoothen. In all our language, we do not find a single word that would contain this Ѳ, and even more, although we have in our language the odd word borrowed from the Greeks, featuring Ѳ, Romanians will only read it as t, or, those who wish to make a spectacle of themselves, as ft. A Romanian will say Toader or Tudor [i.e.: two versions of Theodore] and Toma [i.e.: Thomas], and not θeodor and θoma, the same as all European peoples. This Ѳ letter or sound was born in the midst of Asia and Africa's heat and indolence, where people speak mostly from their throats and the tip of their heat-widened tongues: that is whence Greeks from Greece originated and it is also from there that they have brought it along."
Absurd theories and comparisons aside, this shows that the letter was meant to show, in theory, /θ/ (in words that were supposed to have it), but was never pronounced differently (kinda like the present-day â). Dahn 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on Ѳ and how it was pronounced

message: Nowadays a certain font is used in Romanian to give a period flair to signs and text, not unlike Fraktur is used in English.
This would be an example.
I think this font is a Latinized form of the old Cyrillic script.
Can you confirm?
Did old Romanian Cyrillic have a special shape that is imitated now?
Should it be mentioned in the article?
--Error (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah such fonts are used to produce the archaic feeling, they are based on old Cyrillic decorative fonts (like used in book titles), and currently are often used in religious context. Personally I feel this font is a more typical example of this. I guess such legacy of the Roman Cyrillic could be mentioned in the article. Hellerick (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic script 

message: Please someone fix it or just take it off until fixed. First word on the second line is "IN Р Ъ Р Ъ Ц I Ѧ" instead of "IN П Ъ Р Ъ Ц I Ѧ".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acct001 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord's Prayer mistake 

message: During all my studies I rather learned that Cyrillic is not a daughter of the Glagolitic script thought some letters were taken from it. --86.33.227.116 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent systems 

message: I think the tables is very well done and the authors seems to have put a lot of effort into it. I plan on doing my research on this topic so it'd be great if the author could send me a message or if someone could point me in their direction! --Lajos vH (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transitional Alphabets: Who made the table?