Talk:Belarusian Latin alphabet
|WikiProject Belarus||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Archive comments from Lacinka alphabet
- OK, it's back to Lacinka, with the other one being a redirect. If you want, I can delete the redirect too. Dori | Talk 17:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
table of equivalence to Cyrillic?
Can we have a table of equivalence to Cyrillic if appropriate, please? – Kaihsu 19:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder when and who codified the modern spelling of the Łacinka. It bears some resemblance to the modern Lithuanian alphabet, which was not in use until 20th century (before that Polish alphabet was used in most cases). Was there some kind of a language reform? Halibutt 07:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also like to learn more about history of this alphabet. Latin was fairly common in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth among the szlachta, so I'd guess Łacinka evolved from this influence...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Cyrillic in Wikipedia
Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at
- Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
- Discussing potential revision of current practices
Belarusian Latin alphabet
The references here need to be (at least partly) translated into English. As they are, they're pretty well incomprehensible to someone (like me) who doesn't know Belarusian (or whatever language they're written in). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English. English-language sources would be better. Hairy Dude 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There you've got me. I understand the request, but I'm doubting there even exist English sources on that. The matter is obscure and rare. By the way, in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English I see that the sources and quotes should be in English and not a word about translating the sources' names. Would you provide an example of how that would look? Is there a WP normative on that? ---Yury Tarasievich 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
From this article I couldn't understand how the letter ё is written - "jo" or "io".
I want to open an account with a name in Łacinka, and I don't know how to write it.
From the usage in the articles at lacinka.org I guess that it's "io" after consonants and "jo" after vowels and in the beginning of the word. But is there some more authoritative source? --126.96.36.199 07:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- As it was never codified, in a real sense of the word, there's no authoritative source at all, only sort of convention. Yury Tarasievich 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And do you know what is the convention? I wanted to call my account "вавёрка", but in Lacinka. The guys at be-x-old told me that it's "vaviorka", which looks logical to me. (My logic says that it's supposed to be similar to Polish, but not too similar. For example, I welcome the change of w to v. Your logic may be completely different.) --Vaviorka 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Łacinka is now an official romanisation method?
Source: Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names New York, 21-30 August 2007
... 163. The representative of Belarus presented paper E/CONF.98/CRP.21, which discussed the history of the Latin alphabet, or Latinka, recently adopted as an official standard for the romanization of Belarusian place names. This alphabet had been used to write Belarusian in Roman script for many years and so had a more well-established status than other, more recent, romanization systems. ...
- This is, emphatically, not Łacinka, despite some claims, but the 2007 amendment of the 2000 system, functionally and implementationally the same, but introducing some combining diacritical combinations instead of using non-combining diacriticals ("in order to save space"), one of them — newly introduced L-acute. Also, the U-acute (which was possibly introduced because of technicalities, in the first place) is changed now to a more intuitive expected U-breve. See be:Інструкцыя_па_транслітарацыі_(2007) for the official sources nomenclature. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Was U-acute ever used (Ú, ú)? Isn't Ŭ, ŭ the proper Latin form of Ў, ў?
- Belarusian: is it "vobłaść" or "vobłasć" (вобласць) in Łacinka? I've seen both.
- Now, with the new method of romanising Belarusian, should one write "vobĺaść" instead?
- As per Yury Tarasievich's link, Ĺ ĺ replace Ł, ł. --Anatoli (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you misunderstood this. In the "Instruction for transliteration" (2007) "L acute" (with no prescribed form of acute placement) is used in place of cyrillic "ль", while "L" is used to denote all other instances of "л". Also, Latsinka isn't system of romanisation. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belarusian Latin alphabet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425150217/http://misternet.livejournal.com/14074.html to http://misternet.livejournal.com/14074.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.