Talk:𐰸𐰴𐰆𐰺𐰇𐰢

Grab bag of scholarly discussion of what the term is and means

• In The Jews of Khazaria, Kevin Alan Brook writes (probably merely reproducing someone else's reading):

  The six-letter runic word reads [h]oqurüm, which in the Khazarian language means “I have read [it].”

• This image, which shows the inscription and transliterates it "öɣ^ïðïq ilⁱk", is a copy of what is on page 173 of Gabor Hosszu's Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems; the next page says it "demonstrates the result of the /q/>/ɣ/ transition specific for Kypchak".
• Marcel Erdal writes in HdO: The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium →ISBN:

  "Pritsak read [it] as hokurüm and translated [it] as 'I have read' […] [but] […] "[t]he last character of the word is far from being a normal runiform m, which would have to consist of two pairs of parallel lines meeting on the right edge of the letter; the character could also be read as a front k, giving ök or ük for the third syllable of the word. Furthermore, the first character is only hypothetically taken to be the ligature of a Semitic he with the runic character for o or u which is in fact reminiscent of a wāw. […] the reading therefore ought to be hakurüm and not *hokurüm. Ligeti 1981: 12 expresses his expectation of a in the first syllable not on palaeographical grounds, as I do, but on comparative grounds."

• Golb and Pritsak's Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth century itself transcribes the term as follows:

  (in runes) HWQWRWM "I have read (it)"

- -sche (discuss) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

𐰸𐰴𐰆𐰺𐰇𐰢

Look at our entry. Now look at the manuscript. Now back at our entry. Now back at the manuscript. Sadly, our entry seems to use a different spelling than the manuscript attests, and uses a different gloss. So... was our entry supposed to start with something more like 𐰚 and end with something more like 𐰽, or is it actually OK as-is and a font issue on my end? - -sche (discuss) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The text is right-to-left, so you mean start with something more like 𐰽 and end with something more like 𐰚, I think. But from what I've read at w:Kievian Letter and comparing the characters in our entry to w:Old Turkic alphabet, I think our entry is right. It's supposed to say OKHQURÜM and our entry can be transliterated oqqoröm, which is close enough. The image you linked to, however, wants to transliterate it "ög^ïðïq ilⁱk", and I don't know where they get that from. According to File:Thomsen Orkhon table 1893.png there's also a fair amount of variation in the appearance of the letters. With some imagination I can believe our entry contains the same letters as the inscription (comparing also File:Signature Kiev letter.gif). But I really don't understand why it's transcribed "okhqurüm/oqqoröm" in one place and "ög^ïðïq ilⁱk" in another. If the former is right, then I'm pretty sure our entry is right. If the latter is right, I can't get the letters to match up with the characters in w:Old Turkic alphabet, but that could just be because of my lack of knowledge. —Angr 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As much trouble as the RTL-ness gave me when I tried to type the word, you'd think I've have gotten the "starts with" and "ends with" straight. Oops! - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "öɣ^ïðïq ilⁱk" image is a copy of what is on page 173 of Gabor Hosszu's Heritage of Scribes: The Relation of Rovas Scripts to Eurasian Writing Systems; the next page says it "demonstrates the result of the /q/>/ɣ/ transition specific for Kypchak". I've started collecting scholarly interpretations of the term on Talk:𐰸𐰴𐰆𐰺𐰇𐰢. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The second letter (from the right) should be the 𐰵-variant of "𐰴", right? It certainly looks more like what's in the manuscript. - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, they're both plausible, and since they're variant forms of the same rune, I've redirected for now. - -sche (discuss) 08:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really cleanup, but I've downloaded an Old Turkic font (I think there is only one) and Firefox displays it perfectly, but IE and Chrome can only display boxes. I don't have Opera so I can't comment on that. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Featuring as FWOTD

I would like to feature this word in a focus week for barely attested languages, but it's not immediately clear to me which entry should even be the one featured; presumably this one has more scholarly support than the version with the khet? (Also, here's the image I intend to use.) @-sche, Wikitiki89 —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The first letter (reading right-to-left) in the image of the actual manuscript simply doesn't look like 𐰸 to me. But 'mixing of scripts' (ח𐰂𐰵𐰆𐰺𐰇𐰢) seems like a contrived explanation of what is present. (Whether the second letter is 𐰵 or 𐰴 is also hard to tell. The latter has the advantage of being all Orkhon.) I would use 𐰸𐰴𐰆𐰺𐰇𐰢. - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jberkel, Wikitiki89: Could you please make a version of the image to the right with a transparent, rather than white, background? Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge – Jberkel (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) ☛

Signature Kiev letter transparent