[SPLIT] Ancient European Alphabets

[Tabiti]

Bulgarian pre-christian runes (yes, we had runic alphabet):


Б, Ж, З, У, Ф, Ш, Щ, Ъ, Ь in Cyrillic probably originated from those.

[Angantyr]

Bulgarian pre-christian runes (yes, we had runic alphabet):


Б, Ж, З, У, Ф, Ш, Щ, Ъ, Ь in Cyrillic probably originated from those.

The Bulgarian runes are nothing but nationalistic mysticism. Clearly, many of the letters are based on Cyrillic. This would necessarily be after the Christianization of the Bulgars, after they had abandoned their original Bulgar tongue and adopted Slavic.

And Cyrillic itself is based on Greek. We know this as a historical fact as the developers of the Cyrillic alphabet were Greeks who explicitly did so. Moreover, the similarity between Greek and Cyrillic is overwhelming.

We also know that they borrowed letters from Hebrew for sounds that did not exist in Greek. Thus the Ш is a direct borrowing from Hebrew ש and represents the same sound, that of "sh" in English.

I was completing my Ph.D. in historical linguistics before I switched to law. This is my speciality.

[Tabiti]

OK, as you wish so...Could post pre-christian artefacts with runes, but that is not the case. Some of them don't look in the same way, btw, but I must scan images.
Never claimed Cyrillic wasn't based on Greek alphabet. Yes, it is based, as the Greek alphabet was based on earlier ones.

[Angantyr]

OK, as you wish so...Could post pre-christian artefacts with runes, but that is not the case. Some of them don't look in the same way, btw, but I must scan images.
Never claimed Cyrillic wasn't based on Greek alphabet. Yes, it is based, as the Greek alphabet was based on earlier ones.

Firstly, there are no accepted pre-Christian artefacts with Slavic Runes on them. Secondly, we absolutely and unquestionably know the history and development of Cyrillic and the proposed Slavic runes are clearly based on Cyrillic even to the most untrained eye. It is impossible that the proto-Slavs invented a nearly identical system in complete isolation.

Cyrillic was based on Greek and Greek was based on Phoenecian, a sister script to Hebrew. Like Cyrillic, Latin script is also based on Greek through the intermediary of Etruscan.

[Osweo]

Glagolitza - the preCyrillic:

Actually, though, I might have got things a bit confused here, but isn't this alphabet THE original Cyrillic? The one that Kyrill and Mefodiy made up?

As I heard somewhere, the modern 'Cyrillic' was invented under the auspices of a later Bulgarian Tsar - I forget which one - when the old glagolitic script for Slavonic was rejected in favour of the more Greek one in use today.

Bulgarian pre-christian runes (yes, we had runic alphabet):

There was probably a cousin of the Orkhon runes (found in Turkic language inscriptions from Eastern Turkestan and Mongolia) that was known to the steppe ancestors of the Bulgars, aye. The Magyar runes may be related too.

Firstly, there are no accepted pre-Christian artefacts with Slavic Runes on them. Secondly, we absolutely and unquestionably know the history and development of Cyrillic and the proposed Slavic runes are clearly based on Cyrillic even to the most untrained eye. It is impossible that the proto-Slavs invented a nearly identical system in complete isolation.

This is the case. Obvious forgeries like the Book Of Veles are damned irritating in their continuing power to mislead the innocent.

Like Cyrillic, Latin script is also based on Greek through the intermediary of Etruscan.

The ancestry of our Runes via an Etruscan intermediary from Latin should be brought up too.

I love this topic.

Я тоже!

there are many other defunct scripts.

Glagolitic is still studied in some seminaries, I believe though, for dealing with older theological texts, so can't really be called totally 'defunct'.

Abur (used for the Old Permic language),

I love that one - horrendously impractical though. Still, good marks for effort, Stefan Permskiy! None of my modern Komi friends had heard of it though. I think I made a thread on it back on the Old Skadi...

[Angantyr]

Actually, though, I might have got things a bit confused here, but isn't this alphabet THE original Cyrillic? The one that Kyrill and Mefodiy made up?

As I heard somewhere, the modern 'Cyrillic' was invented under the auspices of a later Bulgarian Tsar - I forget which one - when the old glagolitic script for Slavonic was rejected in favour of the more Greek one in use today.


There was probably a cousin of the Orkhon runes (found in Turkic language inscriptions from Eastern Turkestan and Mongolia) that was known to the steppe ancestors of the Bulgars, aye. The Magyar runes may be related too.

This is the case. Obvious forgeries like the Book Of Veles are damned irritating in their continuing power to mislead the innocent.

The ancestry of our Runes via an Etruscan intermediary from Latin should be brought up too.

Я тоже!

Glagolitic is still studied in some seminaries, I believe though, for dealing with older theological texts, so can't really be called totally 'defunct'.

I love that one - horrendously impractical though. Still, good marks for effort, Stefan Permskiy! None of my modern Komi friends had heard of it though. I think I made a thread on it back on the Old Skadi...

I cannot get this damn thing to quote quotes properly.

Cyrillic is the orginal Slavic alphabet invented by Kirill and Mefodij. Glagolitic sprung up contemporaneously. Unlike Cyrillic, for which we know the history throughly, the development of Glagolitic is quite murky. It shares many characteristics with Cyrillic, but there are differences in the letter shapes.

As I already emphasized in my earlier post, Bulgarian runes are nothing but wishful thinking and romanticism. The obvious similarities to Cyrillic and the complete lack of archaeological support leave no other conclusion. As much as the letters resembles Cyrillic, they do not resemble Orkhon Runes.

There have been attempts to relate Hungarian Rovasiras to the Orkhon Turkic Runes. However, the geographical separation of the Magyars and the Orkhon script make this very unlikely. Moreover, there is little or no similarity in the shapes of the letters and the very particular ligatures in Rovasiras has no parallel in Orkhon. The only thing they do share in common is that some consonants have two forms, one of which was used with front vowels, the other with back vowels. The origin of Rovasiras remains a mystery.

I agree that Germanic Runes are also based on an Etruscan intermediary. There are obvious similarities between several Latin characters and Runic characters. Whereas, the same cannot be said for Ogham.

Glagolitic is studied in some seminaries. But, Sumerian cuneiform is also studied in universities. They are not in common use for any living language. By the same token, I use Germanic Runes for ceremonial purposes, but I have nobody to correspond with in that script...particularly in any ancient form of Germanic.

It is not fair to call the Abur alphabet impractical. It was based on Cyrillic in almost everything but letter shapes and names. I do not know any Komi or Udmurt (they were one language at the time the script was used), so I cannot comment on its currency.

[Osweo]

However, the geographical separation of the Magyars and the Orkhon script make this very unlikely.

Distance wise, yes, but Pannonia to the Gobi is one sort of terrain all the way, almost. It's almost always been a cultural unifier, that belt of Great Steppe there.

Moreover, there is little or no similarity in the shapes of the letters and the very particular ligatures in Rovasiras has no parallel in Orkhon. The only thing they do share in common is that some consonants have two forms, one of which was used with front vowels, the other with back vowels. The origin of Rovasiras remains a mystery.

Are we even that certain about the values of the Hungarian 'runes'? I've been able to find very little about it.

It is not fair to call the Abur alphabet impractical.

I've tried writing reasonably long texts in it, for fun, and the shape and complexity of the letters makes this quite a task. And it's difficult to get anything approaching cursive out of them too. That said, the world's most spoken tongue utilises the most fiendishly complex script known...

[Angantyr]

Distance wise, yes, but Pannonia to the Gobi is one sort of terrain all the way, almost. It's almost always been a cultural unifier, that belt of Great Steppe there.

Are we even that certain about the values of the Hungarian 'runes'? I've been able to find very little about it.

I've tried writing reasonably long texts in it, for fun, and the shape and complexity of the letters makes this quite a task. And it's difficult to get anything approaching cursive out of them too. That said, the world's most spoken tongue utilises the most fiendishly complex script known...

The Hungarians came from the western Urals (and not from the grassy steppes) to the Danubian basin in reaatively short order. Moreover, had they been in contact with Turkic peoples long enough to adopt the script, they would have also borrowed significant vocabulary, which is not the case. This fact, plus the lack of similarity in the scripts makes an Orkhon connection extremely unlikely.

We are absolutely certain of the values of the Hungarian Runes. It was generally known and in common use by Hungarians in Transylvania up to the 18th century. And it is still taught to children in Hungarian schools as a matter of cultural pride.

I once saw a computer font for Abur. If the shape of the letters is the only complexity, that would reduce it to the level of Cyrillic or Latin. I will look for it and send it to you.

The most complex script is generally accepted to be Japanese.

[Psychonaut]

The most complex script is generally accepted to be Japanese.

This would be true if the Japanese hadn't been simplifying their script with the addition of the katakana and hiragana syllabary scripts. I'd venture to say that the character set used by the Mandarin speakers on Taiwan is the most complex in use today. My complete long form (繁體字 fántǐzì) dictionary contains over 80,000 unique characters. Chinese orthography is stupifyingly complex.

[Tabiti]

"Being Pagans they read and divined with lines and cuts" - a medieval writer about pre-christian Bulgarians.

Who is talking about "Slavic runes"???
Some examples of signs found in Pliska (the old capital of Danubian Bulgaria, pre-christian (and pre-"slavic) time):






"They were Pagans and read and divined with lines and cuts" - a medieval writer about pre-christian Bulgarians.

There are tables for Bulgarian, Hunnish, Turkic, Germanic and other rune scripts comparison, but I don't have them on my computer for the moment. Should search them online or scan...
Here this is an article, some could find interesting:
http://groznijat.tripod.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_5.html
I'm not saying all is 100% true, it's just an aproach.

P.S. Sorry about the offtopic! Thread is about European alphabets, not ancient ones!