Talk:Angular Glagolitic

Font?

I have very, very beginning abilities in BCS, and cannot read the sources this article draws on well. It appears that some of this information is specifically about one set of commercial typefaces from Hermes Soft rather than about Croatian Glagolitic itself, but I'm unsure of that. Can anyone with a better reading knowledge of Croatian/BCS check this article's sources out? Pathawi (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Given that this is an extremely specialized subject, I give the responses describing its use in specialized literature somewhat more weight. (closed by non-admin page mover) asilvering (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Croatian Glagolitic → Angular Glagolitic – "Croatian Glagolitic" usually does refer to Angular Glagolitic in palaeographic usage but as such "Croatian Glagolitic" is only a nationally popular term because the script form was used by multiple ethnicities including notably the Slovenes among whom it seems to have developed, and too broad because it also encompasses non-angular cursive forms, which are not the subject of the article. Ivan (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• This needs a broader consensus, Croatian Glagolitic is far more used in English sources. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in the sense that Russian doll is more common than Matryoshka doll. The article still has to use the latter term for disambiguation purposes, because there are many different types of Russian dolls. Actually, "Angular Glagolitic" is more common in English sources when referring to the script form. The reason "Croatian Glagolitic" appears more common is because the phrase "Croatian Glagolitic" or "Croato-Glagolitic" is used to encompass all such Glagolitic texts. That often includes Rounded Glagolitic texts from the region, and cursive texts that are never called "Angular Glagolitic" by palaeographers. The term "Croatian Glagolitic" is broader than "Angular Glagolitic", but the article was written about Angular Glagolitic. If someone eventually writes an article with the title Glagolitic in Croatia, then Croatian Glagolitic can be converted from a redirect into a disambiguation page. Until then, the title ought to be "Angular Glagolitic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Иованъ (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Writing systems has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:SportingFlyer. I think we should stick to WP:COMMONNAME. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. —Srnec (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. See my reply to SportingFlyer for details. Ivan (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• In Croatian scholarly sources they seem to use both terms interchangeably, judging by some casual Google searches on Hrčak. On that note, I quickly found a perhaps larger issue in that we don't even have a mention of the term "triangular" Glagolitic (trokutasta glagoljica). --Joy (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • You are correct. With the exception of paleographers, most scholarly sources written by Croats use them interchangeably, as well as some from outside. But "Croatian Glagolitic" and "Croato-Glagolitic" is often also used in a textual or "corpus" sense, inclusive of works written in Rounded Glagolitic and cursive forms, whereas "Angular Glagolitic" only ever refers to the script.
  • As for "triangular" Glagolitic, that would be the effects of the medium on the letterforms of an amateur engraver on part of the Konavle inscription, which Marica Čunčić then extrapolated into an entire script form, which she incorporated into her 2004 "rosette model" of the genesis of the script (directly inspired by Sambunjak's "mandala model", not the first such model). It is very popular in lay literature, but considered fringe by scholarship. Although this sentiment has been expressed in the scholarly literature, most have shied away from producing a thorough rebuttal: Marica is a kind and gentle soul, and her proposal is not serious enough to sway experienced palaeographers.
  • Cursive Glagolitic would certainly merit its own article. There is strong precedent for the term in specialist literature, and much has been written about it. It is part of the argument against using "Croatian Glagolitic" as the main title for Angular Glagolitic: many earlier cursive hands were angular, but most of the cursive corpus is rounded. Much does not fit neatly in either, and the term "cursive" is much more common in reference to these scripts than their characterisation as "rounded" or "angular". One could try to subsume it under "Croatian Glagolitic", but then you make an artificial grouping of Angular+Cursive to the exclusion of Rounded: Rounded and Angular often share more in common than Angular and Cursive, and as I mentioned above, for textual/provenance reasons some Rounded hands are generally referred to as "Croatian Glagolitic". Ivan (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move cleanup

Pinging @Иованъ: could you please clean up the article to accord with the outcome of the page move? I changed the first sentence but no further, as I didn't want to introduce any errors. -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly! Ivan (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)