el Galepin on Nostr: So ƚa grafìa latina de i Slavi darente caxa “Something should also be said about ...
So ƚa grafìa latina de i Slavi darente caxa
“Something should also be said about the theses that
exaggerate the perfection of the monographemic system. Such a system
was first devised in Croatia by Pavao Vitezović, but the implementation
of this system remained in his manuscripts.
Vitezović’s solutions were taken over by Ljudevit Gaj in 1830. The
principle that a single phoneme is used for a single grapheme is good and
economical, but the principle alone cannot be considered ideal.
Theoretically, it does not matter whether we use a grapheme with a
superscript or subscript diacritic mark, or whether we add another
grapheme that cannot be realized in the speech sequence to the existing
grapheme. The diacritic mark has the same function as an added letter.
Our old writers and linguists pursued the possibilities of unambiguous
writing, and their efforts were aimed precisely at achieving as much
uniformity in conscious normative interventions as is necessary to avoid
any ambiguity. Superficial research may assume that their graphemic
suggestions contain different recordings of the same phonemes, but it is
necessary to repeatedly re-read the works of our old writers and linguists
and use detailed analyses to point to the uninterrupted flow in the
development of the Croatian Latin script.”
Croatian Latin Script Throughout the Centuries
Loretana Farkaš
University of Osijek
“Something should also be said about the theses that
exaggerate the perfection of the monographemic system. Such a system
was first devised in Croatia by Pavao Vitezović, but the implementation
of this system remained in his manuscripts.
Vitezović’s solutions were taken over by Ljudevit Gaj in 1830. The
principle that a single phoneme is used for a single grapheme is good and
economical, but the principle alone cannot be considered ideal.
Theoretically, it does not matter whether we use a grapheme with a
superscript or subscript diacritic mark, or whether we add another
grapheme that cannot be realized in the speech sequence to the existing
grapheme. The diacritic mark has the same function as an added letter.
Our old writers and linguists pursued the possibilities of unambiguous
writing, and their efforts were aimed precisely at achieving as much
uniformity in conscious normative interventions as is necessary to avoid
any ambiguity. Superficial research may assume that their graphemic
suggestions contain different recordings of the same phonemes, but it is
necessary to repeatedly re-read the works of our old writers and linguists
and use detailed analyses to point to the uninterrupted flow in the
development of the Croatian Latin script.”
Croatian Latin Script Throughout the Centuries
Loretana Farkaš
University of Osijek