View Single Post
Old 07-05-2010, 10:29 AM   #32 (permalink)
Lindy
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tedrlord View Post
I don't think using Cyrillic for Russian is an especially artificial way of adding a written component to language....
Quote:
Originally Posted by stingc View Post
Korean is similar, but even more synthetic. The spoken language is natural, but the written language was entirely designed by scholars commisioned by the king in the 15th century or so. They had used chinese characters before (and they're still used sometimes), but it was very awkward. The resulting writing system is I think considered the most efficient for any real language (only 24 characters and completely phonetic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
Latin developed from the Phoenician and Greek alphabets, so it was sort of an organic growth. English used the Latin alphabet because that what was used in the churches.

Cyrillic was flat out created by two monks. They invented letters for certain sounds (Sh, Ch, Ts, Ya, etc.) that don't exist in Greek. There are also a lot more letters in Russian than Greek (30 vs 24), and not all of the Greek letters are in Russian (there's no Greek Zeta, Psi or Omega, among others).

Russian is definitely an organic language, and there are a lot of similar, related languages in Eastern Europe. Ukranian speakers can usually muddle through Russian without too much trouble, as can a lot of Poles and Bulgarians. I know several Polish guys that don't have real talents for languages that can converse pretty easily in Russian. The way that my friends have described it is like an English speaker from the deep South talking to someone that speaks Cockney English. There are a lot of words in common, but understanding them can be very hard.
I agree, Xerxys, sinlesstomorrow gave us an excellent bump.

I think that some have gotten stuck in thinking of the word artificial as meaning synthetic or not genuine. Or not "organic." I think that the real root here is "artifice" and that the Cyrillic alphabet was an artifice, e. g. the ingeneous or expedient creation of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. By imposing their artifice onto the existing language, they turned an existing spoken language into a written one. It was for the use of the Church, and was not Russian, as I recall, but what is now called Old Church Slavonic.

I took six semesters of Russian language in college. I can still read it pretty well, (given some time) but never became a fluent speaker. I can agree with The_Jazz about the Slavic similarities. I had no trouble using my Russian to get around in Bulgaria a few years ago.

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360