Re: More orthographic miscellanea (was: Chinese Romanization)

On 11 Sep 2004 "Isaac A. Penzev" <isaacp@UKR...> wrote:

> But anyway I meant there was nothing strange to write in Moldavian with
> Cyrillics.
  In this context you are right: the orthography corresponds to the
religion. Not even the choice between the Latin, Cyrillic, Arab
scripts, but even within one script: Hungarian had different Catholic
and Reformed orthography until 19th century.


> Btw, AFAIK, Cyrillics are still in use in Transnistria (a rebel region
> on the left bank of Dniester).
  But there was an ethnic segregation after 1990, I am right? AFAIK the
Russian is the "official" language there. Are Rumanian (Moldavan) used
in present Transnistria?
  And do you know what is the situation with the third autonomous
region, Gagauzia? Are they still use their Cyrillic script?


> >  Therefore there was no Rumanian "orthography" until 1859, at all.
> My sources give a different info: "Since establishment of indepenent
> Moldovan state in 1359 and till nowadays (with short breaks) Moldovans
> have been using Cyrillic alphabet. The first Moldovan printing shop was
> found in Yassy in 1640.
[...]
> I think the question is strongly influenced by political issues, so let
> us stop.
  I do not want to blame anybody here.  Let's see Hungarian history.
The very first Hungarian text dates from 1192-1195 ("Halotti Beszéd és
Könyörgés", Sermo super sepulchrum, Funeral sermon and prayer), the
first initiatives of the literary standard were in the middle of 16th
century, but it gained a wider ground only in the end of 18th century.
And the present orthography was elaborated decades later.

  It was a long process (350-600 years) from the very first text
monument to get to a literary language in Hungary despite of the fact
that this country was an autonomous regional power between 10th--mid-
16th century. In fact, there were numerous Hungarian publications
before a literary standard would be fixed. But that time, the editors
used their dialects written by their particular orthography. (Some
Hungarian typographers used completely Husitic -- i.e. Czech-like --
letters before, others invented special characters like one resembling
a small-cap "L" for /tS/ etc.)

The very first Hungarian printing shop was founded in 1473. It lasted
300 years yet to reach a widely accepted common Hungarian standard. The
first Rumanian text dates from 1521, the first printing shop was
founded in 1640, they lived under Turkish, Polish, Hungarian domination
in three separate countries (Transsylvania, Moldavia, Wallachia). Thus
they started handicapped, lagging behind with centuries, and your
source states that they reached a literary standard earlier than
Hungarians. It is hardly believable.

  In fact, Rumanian literary language is an amalgam of Muntenian
(=Bucharest area, the heart of Wallachia) and southern Transsylvanian
dialects. The Moldovan contribution is very little.

  Until this point, politics are not involved. Therefore I stop here,
because later consideriationas on Moldovan Rumanian are connected with
the questions of two separate Mordvin, two separate Zyrian and six(!)
separate Ostyak etc. literary norms. And this is politics, indeed.


> I just said I find Moldovan Cyrillics nice looking and easy.
  I am a Slav and I am positively biassed against Cyrillics: it is the
invention of the "Slavic genius". But I try to be objective in my value
judgements. Cyrillic script is a religious import in Rumanian and that
time when the Old Church Slavonic was retired as a liturgic language in
Rumanian Church, it was the time also for Cyrillics to retire.


> Komi (both Zyrian and Permiak) didn't use Abur for at least 200 years
> when they got Cyrillic script.
  There were very few Zyrian* works at all during this 200 years,
therefore, it is rather a gap in Zyrien culture than the presence of a
Cyrillic tradition. I know only three manuscripts and all of them are
translations from Russian (not originals): 1. Sluzhba bozhestvennaja na
zyrjanskom jazyke (1779-86), Bozhestvennaja sluzhba na zyrjanskom
jazyke (end of 18th cent.), Evangelija ot Matveja na vychegodskom
govore (A. Shergin, 1823). Its a period of denationalization conducted
by the Russian royal court. But it is politics, therefore I stop here.
  The return of the post-Soviet nations to the Latin script is an act
of derussification, since Latin orthographies existed earlier only for
two decades among Azeris, Turkmens etc. From this ground, Zyrians also
could return to Abur (if they would be permitted to do this).
  * In Hungarian Finno-Ugristics mainly external ethnonyms are used --
maintaining the terminology of early Hungarian researchers, and Zyrian
is used as pars pro toto. I follow this convention.  However, Abur
existed only in strict Zyrian (Komi-Zyrian).  Permiaks used this
language at that time as a literary language.  The creation of a
distinct Permiak literary language is rather a political than a
lingustic issue.

Reply