ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 16, 2011 18:36:14 GMT -5
Anittas, you're too smart broo.
|
|
|
Post by mordid2 on Sept 17, 2011 16:06:33 GMT -5
If Polish language Cyrillic, I'm sure you'd have easy time to understand us...
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 8, 2011 11:29:45 GMT -5
Let's bring this back up.. for the sake of those suffering from memory lapses.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 8, 2011 11:48:59 GMT -5
Thanks for bumping this thread, Ivo. Here's my reply to the sources you posted in the Serbian forum. ---
What exactly do your sources say?
"Recent scholarship suggests that St. Cyril may have devised the older Glagolitic alphabet, but that the Cyrilic alphabet was perhaps devised by one of his followers."
Notice the letters in red. Yes, "perhaps" it was. Or perhaps it wasn't.
"This is the alphabet we now know as Cyrillic, formally named (much later) after St Cyril, even though it is likely that the alphabet he created was in fact Glagolitic."
The alphabet used in Bulgaria is a variation of the Glagotic alphabet. If one change two letters in the Latin alphabet, I doubt he could convince others it was a new alphabet. The source above seems to be in agreement.
"Its creator is unknown, but may have been Clement of Ohrid."
Yes, he may have been. Or, he may not have been.
"named after Byzantine missionary St. Cyril and developed from Greek between the 8th and 10th centuries, possibly by St. Kliment of Ohrid for the Old Church Slavonic language."
Yes, possibly, which means that it's not a fact. It's more of an inductive reasoning with too little basis to be counted as a fact. Most of the sources you posted cast a shadow of doubt on the origins of this alphabet.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 8, 2011 13:30:27 GMT -5
You are most welcome. And here is my reply to your reply..
They say enough for the alphabet to be attributed to Bulgaria.
Ahh ignorance..
They also say this..
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 8, 2011 14:01:11 GMT -5
And here's my follow-up reply:
You're the ignorant one for posting a bunch of sources that cast doubt on the alphabet's origin while trying to argue the opposite. One source remained steadfast on its origin, but the rest did not.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 8, 2011 16:05:30 GMT -5
And here is my reply to your follow-up reply.
Scholars are dead set on Bulgaria as the place of origin of the Cyrillic alphabet, there's no question about that.
As for the creator of the alphabet, there's probably more proof that it was St. Clement of Ohrid than there is proof of your supposed Daco-Roman origin.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Nov 8, 2011 16:25:34 GMT -5
And here is my reply to your follow-up reply. Scholars are dead set on Bulgaria as the place of origin of the Cyrillic alphabet, there's no question about that. As for the creator of the alphabet, there's probably more proof that it was St. Clement of Ohrid than there is proof of your supposed Daco-Roman origin. This is digression. Is the Bulgartian intellect really so low that you can't sustain a debate even on your own terms? Your argument, your sources ... and now you digress. Seriously, seek help. I hear that health care and mental care are free in Canada. You should take advantage of that.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Nov 8, 2011 16:39:32 GMT -5
^ loooooosers taaaalk.
|
|