Talk:Ge (Cyrillic)

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rusyns

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rusyns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rusyns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RusynsWikipedia:WikiProject RusynsTemplate:WikiProject RusynsRusyns articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Rusyns are mentioned in this article.

Russia: Language & literature Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.

Untitled[edit]

What is a "sounded counterpart"?? 66.245.31.69 22:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been voiced counterpart. Mikkalai 06:59, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Can anyone suggest moving this page to He (Cyrillic) with Ge (Cyrillic) being a dis-ambiguation page for this article and Ghe?? 66.245.69.118 23:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would it be? Ge and Ghe are different letters, (although they may denote the same sound). Are you goung to disambiguate English "Es" and "See" letters, because they may refer to the same sound 'sssss'? Mikkalai 01:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The articles are at C and S and don't need to be at a dis-ambiguation page. 66.245.107.78 01:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the same nonsense is to disambguate this article and Ghe. Mikkalai 03:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The distinction between glyphs (symbols) and phonemes (sounds) can get lost in languages that are written phonetically. Of course it comes up when talking about different languages' Cyrillic alphabets. Are Ukrainian He and Russian Ge the same "letter", or do both languages use a different glyph for the letter "Ge"? Also "E", "Ye", and "I". Is the serbian Ej (Ј) the same letter as Russian "I Kratkoe" (Й)? I'm sometimes tempted to propose articles per phoneme, each of which shows the different glyphs used in different languages.

Articles on phonemes already exist, and they are separate from articles on letters. Articles on letters generally speak only about glyhps, of course with mentioning phonemes which are represented by the glyphs. Nikola 11:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the national alphabets are variations of the Cyrillic script or writing system. The only way to disambiguate them completely would be to to have a separate set of letter articles for each language A (Belarusian), A (Russian), A (Ukrainian), etc., but that would be counterproductive, confusing, and very silly.

Since we're talking about "Alphabets", I think the simplest solution is to stick to articles for "letters", and explain the different usages in each. There will be some duplication of material, and many cross-references. Each alphabet's letters will be aggregated in its article, and all of them in Cyrillic alphabet.

—Michael Z. 20:01, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Is the name "Ghe" (as opposed to "Ge") used in linguistics, or is it just an expedient spelling of the name, made up to allow a separate Wikipedia article? Would it make more sense to call it "Ukrainian Ge", to go along with Ukrainian I and Ukrainian Ye? However, it was in Belarusian at one time too.

—Michael Z. 20:01, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Ghe is a different letter, hence a separate article. And the name is in use. Mikkalai 20:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian I is a very bad name, the letter today might have been used only in Ukrainian, but it is one of the letters in the original Cyrillic alphabet. No idea for a better name though. Nikola 11:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would you need another name? It is in regular usage and unique as an article name. Mikkalai 17:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"A iotified is ligature of I Ukrainian and A". Whoever reads that will be puzzled how could that ligature be made centuries before Ukraine existed. Nikola 15:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True, but it seems to work the way it is described in Ya (Cyrillic). I can't think of a name that wouldn't suffer from similar inadequacies (e.g., "Early Cyrillic I is the twelfth letter of the Ukrainian Alphabet").

Anyway, a redirect can be added if another name is needed for linking in a different context. A 'canonical' name is only needed for the article title, and alternatives can be made clear in the article (one of these days I'll get around to writing it). —Michael Z. 18:31, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Sorry to keep asking, but I guess my original question wasn't clearly stated, so no one has answered it yet. Is there published precedent for using "Ge" and "Ghe" to differentiate Г and Ґ? Are "Ge" and "Ghe" used as transcriptions of the letters' sounds, or transliterations, or merely convenient English labels? Are "Ge" and "Ghe" pronounced differently in Russian or in English? What is the Russian name for the Ukrainian letter Ґ?

I can't find any examples. The Unicode/ISO standard calls them "GHE" and "GHE WITH UPTURN", and MARC standards use "GE" and "GE WITH UPTURN". The Adobe Glyph List uses "Gecyrillic" and "Gheupturncyrillic", but the former might be for historic reasons, since the other modified Ge's are called "Ghemiddlehookcyrillic", "Ghestrokecyrillic", "enghecyrillic".

So Wikipedia's current terminology does conflict with some standardized nomenclatures. It looks like these standards bodies have played it safe and used a modifier ("with upturn") to keep the names unambiguous.

—Michael Z. 21:26, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Well, this is a valid concern then. I'd move Ghe to Ge with upturn and make it redirect here, unless someone disagrees? Nikola 03:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does italicised г look like an inverted s? (г) Adam Cuerden 18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italicized Cyrillic letters are generally made to resemble their cursive counterparts, which in the case of Ge looks rather like a backwards s. Although on the particular font my browser uses, italic Ge looks like the regular Ge, just tilted. Vbdrummer0 23:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Cyrillic_alphabet#Letter-forms_and_typography. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 01:40 Z

The heading has been modified. The link is now Cyrillic alphabet#Letterforms and typography. Coroboy (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H sound[edit]

Г can also make the h sound. Гусар is actually pronounced more or less like Хусар. I added it to the article, but it was deleted.... Davidleeroth 17:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already covers that in greater detail. It's actually [ɦ]. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I have no idea wtf the IPA alphabet means. I think I'm doing pretty good с кириллицой :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidleeroth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bulgarian[edit]

I removed the claim, that the bulgarian г is pronounced as a palatalised g, since Bulgarian doesn't really have palatalised consonants. See: Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (1999). http://books.google.com/books?id=33BSkFV_8PEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=handbook+of+the+international+phonetic+association&hl=en&ei=YdmxTb-aIIvqObXNjfMI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bulgarian&f=false --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the chapter on Bulgarian in the IPA handbook do not claim that there are no palatalized consonants in Bulgarian, but only that they are going to interpret them as C+j. --V111P (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct italic form?[edit]

Is there a source that can describe why the standard and italic forms of г are so distinctly different? Honestly there are a lot of Cyrillic letters that need this explanation, but I think this is one of the most prominent. I would assume it has something to do with the evolution of handwritten Cyrillic, but that really doesn't say much in the long run, and it would be nice to have a more precise explanation. Wohdin (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evolution Шурбур (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H/g in Ukrainian and Belarusian[edit]

In Ukrainian and Belarusian, a voiced velar plosive /ɡ/ 'is present only in loanwords and is written with the Cyrillic letter Ghe with upturn (Ґ ґ) in Ukrainian and with the digraph кг in Belarusian.

This is not completely true. For example there is Ukrainian word ґава (crow) is pronouced with a voiced velar plosive /ɡ/ (gava). I am not fluent in Belarusian but I think there are some words where this occurs. RMN120501 (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name ghe[edit]

As far as I can tell, the name ghe is chiefly (only?) used in the context of digital character encoding. From searching online it appears it was used in MARC encoding standards, possibly coming from ISO 5427 and/or ISO 2022, although I can’t find any sources to determine if the name appeared in code charts all the way back to 1971 or whenever.

Unicode used ge in the 1991 Unicode standard 1.0 (p 206). In the 1993 version 1.1 ge was demoted to an alternate name below ghe (p 50), and in the 1996 version 2.0 it disappeared (p 7-50).

It would be good to note in the article that ghe is restricted to the subject of computer encoding if we can source it properly, or at least note that it is used in that context. —Michael Z. 20:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]