I am in need of  the service for the Royal Martyrs in Slavonic.

Although our weekend services are primarily in English, we have begun

having weekday services primarily in Slavonic.  As I do not have any

printed texts of the Slavonic menaion or Octoechos, I rely on internet

sources - and my usual resource doesn't have the service for the Royal

Martyrs.  If anyone can send me an e-version of the service or a scanned

copy or even a hard copy sent by USPS I would be very appreciative (as

would my Russian parishioners)



APr David Moser



--

Archpriest David Moser

St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church (ROCOR)

Homilies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/propoved/

Website: http://stseraphimboise.org

Dear Fr David,



If you type the words "������ �������������" into a Google search, you will come

up with what you need. (In case Yahoo Groups messes up the Cyrillic, the text

transliterates as "sluzhba novomuchenikov".)



Please keep in mind that the service that is being used in Russia is different

from the text that is used by ROCOR. And most texts available on the web are in

modern orthography.



If you are looking for the Russian service, it's here:

http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/novmuchsl/Main.htm

With accents, the text can be found here:

http://www.st-nikolas.orthodoxy.ru/newmartyres/service.html



If you are looking for the ROCOR service, it's here:

www.st-sergius.org/services/RussMN/01-25.pdf

Here the text is not formatted well, but it also includes information about the

service and a list of the names:

http://www.krotov.info/libr_min/worship/minea_mes/novomuchen.html

Here is a scan of the text in Slavonic, probably just what you're looking for:

http://www.pravoslav.de/acolouthiae/offices/neomartyrs.pdf



Nikita



--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Fr David Moser <moserd@...> wrote:

>

>

> I am in need of  the service for the Royal Martyrs in Slavonic.

> Although our weekend services are primarily in English, we have begun

> having weekday services primarily in Slavonic.  As I do not have any

> printed texts of the Slavonic menaion or Octoechos, I rely on internet

> sources - and my usual resource doesn't have the service for the Royal

> Martyrs.  If anyone can send me an e-version of the service or a scanned

> copy or even a hard copy sent by USPS I would be very appreciative (as

> would my Russian parishioners)

>

> APr David Moser

>

> --

> Archpriest David Moser

> St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church (ROCOR)

> Homilies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/propoved/

> Website: http://stseraphimboise.org

>

Nikita Simmons wrote:

> ...most texts available on the web are in modern orthography.



Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of the typeface, what is the

difference between the old orthography and the modern? I read Serbian

badly, Russian and Slavonic *very* minimally, and had assumed the modern

Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating of the look of the letters.

Is there a more significant difference?



Silouan

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography



"The most recent large reform of the Russian spelling was prepared by Aleksey

Shakhmatov and carried out shortly after the 1917 Revolution. The Russian

orthography was made simpler by unifying several adjectival and pronominal

inflections, replacing the letters ѣ (Yat) with �, � (depending on the

context of Moscovian pronunciation) and ѵ with �, ѳ with �, and

dropping the archaic mute yer � (hard sign) in the terminal position following a

consonant (thus eliminating practically the last graphical remnant of the Old

Slavonic open-syllable system). For instance �������� for ������� ("Rybinsk")."



... a rather simplistic explanation, but accurate. I recommend reading the whole

Wikipedia article to understand the reform in a clearer context. The loss of the

direct historical connection was a linguistic tragedy, but it did make the goals

of public literacy quite a bit more attainable. The spelling rules are

admittedly easier, but it's a rather utilitarian and inelegant system compared

to what we had previously.



Nikita



--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Philip Silouan Thompson <himself@...> wrote:

>

> Nikita Simmons wrote:

> > ...most texts available on the web are in modern orthography.

>

> Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of the typeface, what is the

> difference between the old orthography and the modern? I read Serbian

> badly, Russian and Slavonic *very* minimally, and had assumed the modern

> Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating of the look of the letters.

> Is there a more significant difference?

>

> Silouan

>

I forgot to mention that the old orthography is not completely dead. Folks in

the Russian diaspora (especially in ROCOR) have traditionally tried to maintain

the use of the old orthography, whether successfully or not is debatable. As a

personal observation, it's extremely difficult to maintain a strict adherence to

the old orthography in a world that is in constant contact with modern Russia,

and until the past few years we have not even had computer fonts containing all

the necessary characters for typesetting the old orthography. The results of 90

years of using the reformed spelling means that it's almost impossible to hold

onto the old system in today's world, despite our best efforts. In essence, it's

a lost cause, and whatever valiant efforts are made are still "too little, too

late".



It is interesting that a few brave souls are trying to keep the old orthography

alive, even in Russia, as we can see from this web site:

http://nasledie.russportal.ru/

If you really want to know much more about the old vs. new orthographies, see

the articles at this page:

http://www.russportal.ru/index.php?id=oldorth



Nikita



--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@...> wrote:

>

> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography

>

> "The most recent large reform of the Russian spelling was prepared by Aleksey

Shakhmatov and carried out shortly after the 1917 Revolution. The Russian

orthography was made simpler by unifying several adjectival and pronominal

inflections, replacing the letters &#1123; (Yat) with �, � (depending on the

context of Moscovian pronunciation) and &#1141; with �, &#1139; with �, and

dropping the archaic mute yer � (hard sign) in the terminal position following a

consonant (thus eliminating practically the last graphical remnant of the Old

Slavonic open-syllable system). For instance �������� for ������� ("Rybinsk")."

>

> ... a rather simplistic explanation, but accurate. I recommend reading the

whole Wikipedia article to understand the reform in a clearer context. The loss

of the direct historical connection was a linguistic tragedy, but it did make

the goals of public literacy quite a bit more attainable. The spelling rules are

admittedly easier, but it's a rather utilitarian and inelegant system compared

to what we had previously.

>

> Nikita

>

> --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Philip Silouan Thompson <himself@> wrote:

> >

> > Nikita Simmons wrote:

> > > ...most texts available on the web are in modern orthography.

> >

> > Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of the typeface, what is the

> > difference between the old orthography and the modern? I read Serbian

> > badly, Russian and Slavonic *very* minimally, and had assumed the modern

> > Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating of the look of the letters.

> > Is there a more significant difference?

> >

> > Silouan

> >

>

In addition to the information Nikita supplies about old & new orthography in

Russian, there are some further points pertaining to Slavonic. Slavonic became a

literary language largely to accommodate translations from Greek; consequently,

the Cyrillic alphabet contains letters that would not have been necessary for

words from the native Slavic lexical stock, but represent Greek letters that in

most cases have come to be pronounce in Greek just like other letters--the

vowels omicron and omega, and the vowels iota, eta, and ypsilon, along with the

diphthong omicron-iota, are all pronounced the same in Greek. Slavic needs only

the eta- and omicron-derived letters, and that is all one finds in the modern

orthographies. The spelling of words of Greek origin is therefore drastically

changed. This does not matter much in modern languages, but in Church Slavonic

it is preferable to be able to represent these words in a way resembling their

appearance in Greek.



(The original purpose of the letters y and z in the Latin alphabet was to spell

Greek words; Latin didn't need them.)



Furthermore, Slavonic is pronounce a bit differently by every Orthodox Slavic

nation. The old orthography accommodated these differences easily in a single

spelling system. The new orthographies cannot do so and therefore impose one

national system, necessitating different systems for one and the same language.



The reason for the prevalent use of new orthographies with Slavonic is simply

that the old orthographies were suppressed by dictatorial governments during the

twentieth century. It was impossible to get fonts or typewriters in the old

orthography. This is no longer the case, and continued use of new orthographies

results from laziness or slovenliness.



Of course, if you adhere to the notion that there is only one correct way to

pronounce Slavonic, then you have a reason for imposing the new orthography on

it; but it is better not to be hoodwinked by an absurd prejudice, so in the long

run it is not good for you.



Stephen





--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@...> wrote:

>

> I forgot to mention that the old orthography is not completely dead. Folks in

the Russian diaspora (especially in ROCOR) have traditionally tried to maintain

the use of the old orthography, whether successfully or not is debatable. As a

personal observation, it's extremely difficult to maintain a strict adherence to

the old orthography in a world that is in constant contact with modern Russia,

and until the past few years we have not even had computer fonts containing all

the necessary characters for typesetting the old orthography. The results of 90

years of using the reformed spelling means that it's almost impossible to hold

onto the old system in today's world, despite our best efforts. In essence, it's

a lost cause, and whatever valiant efforts are made are still "too little, too

late".

>

> It is interesting that a few brave souls are trying to keep the old

orthography alive, even in Russia, as we can see from this web site:

> http://nasledie.russportal.ru/

> If you really want to know much more about the old vs. new orthographies, see

the articles at this page:

> http://www.russportal.ru/index.php?id=oldorth

>

> Nikita

>

> --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@> wrote:

> >

> > From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography

> >

> > "The most recent large reform of the Russian spelling was prepared by

Aleksey Shakhmatov and carried out shortly after the 1917 Revolution. The

Russian orthography was made simpler by unifying several adjectival and

pronominal inflections, replacing the letters &#1123; (Yat) with �, � (depending

on the context of Moscovian pronunciation) and &#1141; with �, &#1139; with �,

and dropping the archaic mute yer � (hard sign) in the terminal position

following a consonant (thus eliminating practically the last graphical remnant

of the Old Slavonic open-syllable system). For instance �������� for �������

("Rybinsk")."

> >

> > ... a rather simplistic explanation, but accurate. I recommend reading the

whole Wikipedia article to understand the reform in a clearer context. The loss

of the direct historical connection was a linguistic tragedy, but it did make

the goals of public literacy quite a bit more attainable. The spelling rules are

admittedly easier, but it's a rather utilitarian and inelegant system compared

to what we had previously.

> >

> > Nikita

> >

> > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Philip Silouan Thompson <himself@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nikita Simmons wrote:

> > > > ...most texts available on the web are in modern orthography.

> > >

> > > Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of the typeface, what is the

> > > difference between the old orthography and the modern? I read Serbian

> > > badly, Russian and Slavonic *very* minimally, and had assumed the modern

> > > Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating of the look of the letters.

> > > Is there a more significant difference?

> > >

> > > Silouan

> > >

> >

>

Dear Stephen,



I would advance one other reason for some use of new orthography in Slavonic

texts, and that is to make them accessible to a great many people who do not

read Slavonic. How many contemporary Russians would simply choose not to pray at

all if they had no access to prayer books printed in civil script? For that

matter, I have found texts of the hours, etc. in civil script to be a very

useful tool for beginning readers, who often need "training wheels," so to

speak. For choirs also, if you are trying to get them to sing from text, new

orthography printouts can be a big help.



In Christ,



Fr. Hermogen



--- On Fri, 7/10/09, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...> wrote:



> From: stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>

> Subject: [ustav] Re: Modern orthography

> To: ustav@yahoogroups.com

> Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 3:51 PM

> In addition to the information Nikita

> supplies about old & new orthography in Russian, there

> are some further points pertaining to Slavonic. Slavonic

> became a literary language largely to accommodate

> translations from Greek; consequently, the Cyrillic alphabet

> contains letters that would not have been necessary for

> words from the native Slavic lexical stock, but represent

> Greek letters that in most cases have come to be pronounce

> in Greek just like other letters--the vowels omicron and

> omega, and the vowels iota, eta, and ypsilon, along with the

> diphthong omicron-iota, are all pronounced the same in

> Greek. Slavic needs only the eta- and omicron-derived

> letters, and that is all one finds in the modern

> orthographies. The spelling of words of Greek origin is

> therefore drastically changed. This does not matter much in

> modern languages, but in Church Slavonic it is preferable to

> be able to represent these words in a way resembling their

> appearance in Greek.

>

> (The original purpose of the letters y and z in the Latin

> alphabet was to spell Greek words; Latin didn't need them.)

>

>

> Furthermore, Slavonic is pronounce a bit differently by

> every Orthodox Slavic nation. The old orthography

> accommodated these differences easily in a single spelling

> system. The new orthographies cannot do so and therefore

> impose one national system, necessitating different systems

> for one and the same language.

>

> The reason for the prevalent use of new orthographies with

> Slavonic is simply that the old orthographies were

> suppressed by dictatorial governments during the twentieth

> century. It was impossible to get fonts or typewriters in

> the old orthography. This is no longer the case, and

> continued use of new orthographies results from laziness or

> slovenliness.

>

> Of course, if you adhere to the notion that there is only

> one correct way to pronounce Slavonic, then you have a

> reason for imposing the new orthography on it; but it is

> better not to be hoodwinked by an absurd prejudice, so in

> the long run it is not good for you.

>

> Stephen

>

>

> --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@...> wrote:

> >

> > I forgot to mention that the old orthography is not

> completely dead. Folks in the Russian diaspora (especially

> in ROCOR) have traditionally tried to maintain the use of

> the old orthography, whether successfully or not is

> debatable. As a personal observation, it's extremely

> difficult to maintain a strict adherence to the old

> orthography in a world that is in constant contact with

> modern Russia, and until the past few years we have not even

> had computer fonts containing all the necessary characters

> for typesetting the old orthography. The results of 90 years

> of using the reformed spelling means that it's almost

> impossible to hold onto the old system in today's world,

> despite our best efforts. In essence, it's a lost cause, and

> whatever valiant efforts are made are still "too little, too

> late".

> >

> > It is interesting that a few brave souls are trying to

> keep the old orthography alive, even in Russia, as we can

> see from this web site:

> > http://nasledie.russportal.ru/

> > If you really want to know much more about the old vs.

> new orthographies, see the articles at this page:

> > http://www.russportal.ru/index.php?id=oldorth

> >

> > Nikita

> >

> > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@> wrote:

> > >

> > > From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography

> > >

> > > "The most recent large reform of the Russian

> spelling was prepared by Aleksey Shakhmatov and carried out

> shortly after the 1917 Revolution. The Russian orthography

> was made simpler by unifying several adjectival and

> pronominal inflections, replacing the letters ѣ (Yat)

> with å, ³ (depending on the context of Moscovian

> pronunciation) and ѵ with è, ѳ with ô, and

> dropping the archaic mute yer ú (hard sign) in the terminal

> position following a consonant (thus eliminating practically

> the last graphical remnant of the Old Slavonic open-syllable

> system). For instance Ðûáèíñêú for Ðûáèíñê

> ("Rybinsk")."

> > >

> > > ... a rather simplistic explanation, but

> accurate. I recommend reading the whole Wikipedia article to

> understand the reform in a clearer context. The loss of the

> direct historical connection was a linguistic tragedy, but

> it did make the goals of public literacy quite a bit more

> attainable. The spelling rules are admittedly easier, but

> it's a rather utilitarian and inelegant system compared to

> what we had previously.

> > >

> > > Nikita

> > >

> > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> Philip Silouan Thompson <himself@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nikita Simmons wrote:

> > > > > ...most texts available on the web are

> in modern orthography.

> > > >

> > > > Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of

> the typeface, what is the

> > > > difference between the old orthography and

> the modern? I read Serbian

> > > > badly, Russian and Slavonic *very*

> minimally, and had assumed the modern

> > > > Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating

> of the look of the letters.

> > > > Is there a more significant difference?

> > > >

> > > > Silouan

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

> Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com

> Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

> Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

> CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com

>

> URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav

>

> More ustav information and service texts:

> http://www.orthodox.net/ustav

> http://www.orthodox.net/services

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>     mailto:ustav-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

>

>

>

On 11.7.2009 1:05, William Holste wrote:



> I would advance one other reason for some use of new

> orthography in Slavonic texts, and that is to make them

> accessible to a great many people who do not read Slavonic.



The new orthography is of little help unless the stresses are

indicated. Books without stresses marked consistently are of no

use for anyone, except perhaps for someone who is already

proficient in Slavonic.



> How many contemporary Russians would simply choose not to pray

> at all if they had no access to prayer books printed in civil

> script?



Or how many would simply choose to spend a couple of hours to

learn the Slavonic orthography? Heck, it quite isn't Glagolithic.



(Well, my experience is that the ordinary Russian tends to

stammer in reading aloud the Creed in *Russian*, as can happen in

a baptism, for instance. Probably partially because the words are

unfamiliar, and the stresses haven't been indicated. With

Slavonic without stresses the result is plain weird.)



> For that matter, I have found texts of the hours, etc.

> in civil script to be a very useful tool for beginning

> readers, who often need "training wheels," so to speak.



With very little effort the original orthography can be mastered

better than the secularized reduction.



But in practice, when I engrave music with lyrics in Slavonic, I

tend to prefer the classical orthography, and secondarily the

Petrine (= "old") civil orthography (preferably amended with

stresses). This is because if one writes the Slavonic in the

Soviet orthography, the music is accessible to those using the

Russian pronunciation of Slavonic, but hardly to anyone else,

like Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. These peoples exist, really.



- Jopi Harri

Father Hermogen, are you not confusing two distinct things? Orthography and

letter design are neither the same thing nor necessarily linked together. From

the time of Peter I to the Bolshevik coup, Russian was commonly written in civil

script and old orthography. Nowadays one sees pseudo-Slavonic fonts with

polustav script and new orthography.



What I would require of a prayer book in Slavonic is not polustav letters, but

old orthography (iat', izhitsa, fita, tvërdyi znak) and marked accents (only

acute accents are needed with civil script). I don't like to insult the

intelligence of Russians by thinking that they are going to be thrown for a loop

if they encounter a iat' (although Anglo Russian majors may be).



In my experience, "training wheels" are a bit risky: people may never progress

beyond them. A constant flood of Slavonic written in new orthography encourages

them not to move beyond.



I learned these things from hillbillies who immigrated and became coal miners

and mill hunks, and from their children (some of whom had become insurance

agents or even attorneys). One of my treasures is the Popovich Velikii Sbornik,

printed in traditional polustav Slavonic, and the coal miners were undaunted by

it. Of course, it depended in part on their education, which was often

determined by politics in the old country, so Slavonic books in the Latin

alphabet (usually Slovak orthography, for some Hungarian orthography--Otcse nás

izse jesi ná nebeszich . . . . jáko i mö osztávlyájem dolzsnikom násim--).

It was not surprising to find old grannies in their baba uniforms (navy blue

dress with white polka dots) who could move back and forth among all of these

without difficulty. So it's hard for me to accept that traditional Slavonic is

too tough for modern Russians. But my objection is not to civil script (Slavonic

printed in civil script long antedats the new orthography).



Stephen





--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, William Holste <wholste@...> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Stephen,

>

> I would advance one other reason for some use of new orthography in Slavonic

texts, and that is to make them accessible to a great many people who do not

read Slavonic. How many contemporary Russians would simply choose not to pray at

all if they had no access to prayer books printed in civil script? For that

matter, I have found texts of the hours, etc. in civil script to be a very

useful tool for beginning readers, who often need "training wheels," so to

speak. For choirs also, if you are trying to get them to sing from text, new

orthography printouts can be a big help.

>

> In Christ,

>

> Fr. Hermogen

>

> --- On Fri, 7/10/09, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...> wrote:

>

> > From: stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>

> > Subject: [ustav] Re: Modern orthography

> > To: ustav@yahoogroups.com

> > Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 3:51 PM

> > In addition to the information Nikita

> > supplies about old & new orthography in Russian, there

> > are some further points pertaining to Slavonic. Slavonic

> > became a literary language largely to accommodate

> > translations from Greek; consequently, the Cyrillic alphabet

> > contains letters that would not have been necessary for

> > words from the native Slavic lexical stock, but represent

> > Greek letters that in most cases have come to be pronounce

> > in Greek just like other letters--the vowels omicron and

> > omega, and the vowels iota, eta, and ypsilon, along with the

> > diphthong omicron-iota, are all pronounced the same in

> > Greek. Slavic needs only the eta- and omicron-derived

> > letters, and that is all one finds in the modern

> > orthographies. The spelling of words of Greek origin is

> > therefore drastically changed. This does not matter much in

> > modern languages, but in Church Slavonic it is preferable to

> > be able to represent these words in a way resembling their

> > appearance in Greek.

> >

> > (The original purpose of the letters y and z in the Latin

> > alphabet was to spell Greek words; Latin didn't need them.)

> >

> >

> > Furthermore, Slavonic is pronounce a bit differently by

> > every Orthodox Slavic nation. The old orthography

> > accommodated these differences easily in a single spelling

> > system. The new orthographies cannot do so and therefore

> > impose one national system, necessitating different systems

> > for one and the same language.

> >

> > The reason for the prevalent use of new orthographies with

> > Slavonic is simply that the old orthographies were

> > suppressed by dictatorial governments during the twentieth

> > century. It was impossible to get fonts or typewriters in

> > the old orthography. This is no longer the case, and

> > continued use of new orthographies results from laziness or

> > slovenliness.

> >

> > Of course, if you adhere to the notion that there is only

> > one correct way to pronounce Slavonic, then you have a

> > reason for imposing the new orthography on it; but it is

> > better not to be hoodwinked by an absurd prejudice, so in

> > the long run it is not good for you.

> >

> > Stephen

> >

> >

> > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> > "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I forgot to mention that the old orthography is not

> > completely dead. Folks in the Russian diaspora (especially

> > in ROCOR) have traditionally tried to maintain the use of

> > the old orthography, whether successfully or not is

> > debatable. As a personal observation, it's extremely

> > difficult to maintain a strict adherence to the old

> > orthography in a world that is in constant contact with

> > modern Russia, and until the past few years we have not even

> > had computer fonts containing all the necessary characters

> > for typesetting the old orthography. The results of 90 years

> > of using the reformed spelling means that it's almost

> > impossible to hold onto the old system in today's world,

> > despite our best efforts. In essence, it's a lost cause, and

> > whatever valiant efforts are made are still "too little, too

> > late".

> > >

> > > It is interesting that a few brave souls are trying to

> > keep the old orthography alive, even in Russia, as we can

> > see from this web site:

> > > http://nasledie.russportal.ru/

> > > If you really want to know much more about the old vs.

> > new orthographies, see the articles at this page:

> > > http://www.russportal.ru/index.php?id=oldorth

> > >

> > > Nikita

> > >

> > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> > "Nikita Simmons" <starina77@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms_of_Russian_orthography

> > > >

> > > > "The most recent large reform of the Russian

> > spelling was prepared by Aleksey Shakhmatov and carried out

> > shortly after the 1917 Revolution. The Russian orthography

> > was made simpler by unifying several adjectival and

> > pronominal inflections, replacing the letters ѣ (Yat)

> > with å, ³ (depending on the context of Moscovian

> > pronunciation) and ѵ with è, ѳ with ô, and

> > dropping the archaic mute yer ú (hard sign) in the terminal

> > position following a consonant (thus eliminating practically

> > the last graphical remnant of the Old Slavonic open-syllable

> > system). For instance Ðûáèíñêú for Ðûáèíñê

> > ("Rybinsk")."

> > > >

> > > > ... a rather simplistic explanation, but

> > accurate. I recommend reading the whole Wikipedia article to

> > understand the reform in a clearer context. The loss of the

> > direct historical connection was a linguistic tragedy, but

> > it did make the goals of public literacy quite a bit more

> > attainable. The spelling rules are admittedly easier, but

> > it's a rather utilitarian and inelegant system compared to

> > what we had previously.

> > > >

> > > > Nikita

> > > >

> > > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com,

> > Philip Silouan Thompson <himself@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nikita Simmons wrote:

> > > > > > ...most texts available on the web are

> > in modern orthography.

> > > > >

> > > > > Besides the obvious cosmetic presentation of

> > the typeface, what is the

> > > > > difference between the old orthography and

> > the modern? I read Serbian

> > > > > badly, Russian and Slavonic *very*

> > minimally, and had assumed the modern

> > > > > Cyrillic orthography was simply an updating

> > of the look of the letters.

> > > > > Is there a more significant difference?

> > > > >

> > > > > Silouan

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> >

> > Post message: ustav@yahoogroups.com

> > Subscribe: ustav-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

> > Unsubscribe: ustav-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

> > CONTACT LIST OWNER: ustav-owner@yahoogroups.com

> >

> > URL to archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ustav

> >

> > More ustav information and service texts:

> > http://www.orthodox.net/ustav

> > http://www.orthodox.net/services

> > Yahoo! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >     mailto:ustav-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

> >

> >

> >

>

> The new orthography is of little help unless the stresses

> are

> indicated. Books without stresses marked consistently are

> of no

> use for anyone, except perhaps for someone who is already

> proficient in Slavonic.



And that is why all the new orthography Russian prayer books I've seen mark the

stresses.



> Or how many would simply choose to spend a couple of hours

> to

> learn the Slavonic orthography? Heck, it quite isn't

> Glagolithic.



Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block about Slavonic, and assume

that *they* could never possibly read *that*.



> But in practice, when I engrave music with lyrics in

> Slavonic, I

> tend to prefer the classical orthography, and secondarily

> the

> Petrine (= "old") civil orthography (preferably amended

> with

> stresses). This is because if one writes the Slavonic in

> the

> Soviet orthography, the music is accessible to those using

> the

> Russian pronunciation of Slavonic, but hardly to anyone

> else,

> like Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. These peoples

> exist, really.



Yes, they do exist. But the Bulgarians and Romanians are using the modern

language more often, as are many of those Ukrainians who prefer Ukrainian to

Russian. I would never advocate printing the service books in civil script.

You're right, it's actually less convenient in the long run, and limits their

usefulness outside of Russian-speaking circles. But for prayer books and

sborniki printed in Russia, by Russians, for Russian speakers, I do appreciate

the advantage of using civil script. Imagine for a moment: you're a priest, and

someone comes to you wanting to learn how to pray. They know virtually nothing

about Orthodoxy. Which would be more helpful, to give them a prayer book they

can actually read, or to insist that before they can learn to pray they must

first invest time and effort in learning how to read the language the prayers

are written in, with a number of letters that look alike and several that look

nothing like the modern language. Oh,

  and don't forget, all the most important words are abbreviated, so you have to

memorize those separately.



In Christ,



Fr. Hermogen

On 11.7.2009 3:51, William Holste wrote:

>

>> The new orthography is of little help unless the stresses

>> are indicated. Books without stresses marked consistently

>> are of no use for anyone, except perhaps for someone who is

>>  already proficient in Slavonic.

>

> And that is why all the new orthography Russian prayer books

> I've seen mark the stresses.





Dear Father,



What I have seen is books that either omit the stresses or have

them inconsistently, so that they are left out in every third

word or so, or in more extended passages. For instance for one

book that I have been using I have had to take the missing

stresses from a classic orthography Sluzhebnik and other proper

service books, or sometimes just to guess them.



An additional nuisance is caused by the fact that the current

standard fonts lack accents for Cyrillic letters. So, texts in

the internet very often omit the stresses altogether.



>> Or how many would simply choose to spend a couple of hours

>> to learn the Slavonic orthography? Heck, it quite isn't

>> Glagolithic.

>

> Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block about

> Slavonic, and assume that *they* could never possibly read

> *that*.



Well, that being the case, why not use Russian?



>> But in practice, when I engrave music with lyrics in

>> Slavonic, I tend to prefer the classical orthography, and

>> secondarily the Petrine (= "old") civil orthography

>> (preferably amended with stresses). This is because if one

>> writes the Slavonic in the Soviet orthography, the music is

>> accessible to those using the Russian pronunciation of

>> Slavonic, but hardly to anyone else, like Ukrainians,

>> Bulgarians, Serbs etc. These peoples exist, really.

>

> Yes, they do exist. But the Bulgarians and Romanians [= Serbs]

> are using the modern language more often, as are many of

> those Ukrainians who prefer Ukrainian to Russian.



The actual case for Bulgarians and Serbs is that virtually

whatever they sing, they sing it in Slavonic. (Recently I

attended a Serbian service in Romania, in which only the Creed

was sung in Serbian (even if most of the read parts were). I have

a similar experience for Bulgaria; however, there are minor

churches there where more Bulgarian is actually sung. But this is

not the case in cathedrals. Bulgarian service books are often

bilingual; I make regular use of a Bulgarian Chasoslov, because

it has been well typeset, and the binding is better than in the

Russian books that I have. Also Bulgarians, nowadays, print

church music in civil orthography, which is a bit problematic to

use, as they have the yery substituted by i, and mostly omit the

soft signs. So, to make use of the music, one needs first to

revise the lyrics.)



In Ukraine, I suppose that the situation is similar, even if in

some places they sing in the vernacular (what I have learnt,

especially the Byzantine Catholics may use all Ukrainian). And

again, when they write Slavonic in the civil script, the result

is a bit problematic to decipher (for instance, yat is

substituted by i; so: mnogaja leta becomes mnogaja lita; pesn'

becomes pisn', and so on).



> I would never advocate printing the service books in civil

> script. You're right, it's actually less convenient in the

> long run, and limits their usefulness outside of

> Russian-speaking circles. But for prayer books and sborniki

> printed in Russia, by Russians, for Russian speakers, I do

> appreciate the advantage of using civil script. Imagine for a

> moment: you're a priest, and someone comes to you wanting to

> learn how to pray. They know virtually nothing about

> Orthodoxy. Which would be more helpful, to give them a prayer

> book they can actually read, or to insist that before they can

> learn to pray they must first invest time and effort in

> learning how to read the language the prayers are written in,

> with a number of letters that look alike and several that look

> nothing like the modern language.



This makes sense; however, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest them to

consider learning to read Slavonic in the proper orthography.

That way they would be able to start to understand more of what

is in there. Namely, there are certain morphological distinctions

that are made in the classical orthography but which can't be

indicated with the civil script.



Of course not all believers are able to do that, for sure. The

additional issue is that until these days, it hasn't been

technologically unproblematic or cost-effective to typeset new

books in the classical orthography. Some have been printed

recently, but the typographical quality is still inferior to the

pre-Revolutionary books. I have never encountered a newly-typeset

Prayer Book of that sort, so one will need to resort to what is

available.



> Oh, and don't forget, all the most important words are

> abbreviated, so you have to memorize those separately.



These can be mastered surprisingly quickly.



- Jopi Harri

Ah, but there's the rub: currently new orthography is overwhelmingly the most

common way of printing Slavonic in Russia, and, alas, in America. The

availability of inexpensive mass printings has had a huge influence in the

history of Slavonic. Until the eighteenth century, the Serbs used a Serbian

recension of Slavonic, the Bulgarians a Bulgarian recension, etc. But since they

had almost no printeries, their books were manuscripts. When printed books from

Muscovy became widely availably, they gave the death blow to the other

recensions. The problem now is that new-orthography Slavonic is becoming the

norm and threatening to sweep away proper Slavonic orthography. I suggest that

the reason for this is not educational, since it is not a great task to learn

the old orthography, but political: the war in the iat' (the Bolsheviks actually

sent goon squads to printing shops to confiscate and destroy fonts with the

iat').



The polustav script is another matter. My discussions with educated Russians

lead me to suspect that the biggest problem is with the titla and other

abbreviations. This is anecdotal, of course, and needs confirmation or

refutation by serious studies. Perhaps we are at a juncture when we should

consider resolving these in printing the canonical liturgical books. This would

entail a much more consistent use of capitalization than has been practiced,

because the uncontracted form of "bog" is traditionally an indication that a

pagan deity is meant, and the uncontracted form of "angel" similarly means a

fallen angel. If we were to resolve the contractions, we would need to use

capitals to indicate what was formerly shown by writing bg" and aggl" with

titla.



Stephen





--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, William Holste <wholste@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > The new orthography is of little help unless the stresses

> > are

> > indicated. Books without stresses marked consistently are

> > of no

> > use for anyone, except perhaps for someone who is already

> > proficient in Slavonic.

>

> And that is why all the new orthography Russian prayer books I've seen mark

the stresses.

>

> > Or how many would simply choose to spend a couple of hours

> > to

> > learn the Slavonic orthography? Heck, it quite isn't

> > Glagolithic.

>

> Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block about Slavonic, and

assume that *they* could never possibly read *that*.

>

> > But in practice, when I engrave music with lyrics in

> > Slavonic, I

> > tend to prefer the classical orthography, and secondarily

> > the

> > Petrine (= "old") civil orthography (preferably amended

> > with

> > stresses). This is because if one writes the Slavonic in

> > the

> > Soviet orthography, the music is accessible to those using

> > the

> > Russian pronunciation of Slavonic, but hardly to anyone

> > else,

> > like Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. These peoples

> > exist, really.

>

> Yes, they do exist. But the Bulgarians and Romanians are using the modern

language more often, as are many of those Ukrainians who prefer Ukrainian to

Russian. I would never advocate printing the service books in civil script.

You're right, it's actually less convenient in the long run, and limits their

usefulness outside of Russian-speaking circles. But for prayer books and

sborniki printed in Russia, by Russians, for Russian speakers, I do appreciate

the advantage of using civil script. Imagine for a moment: you're a priest, and

someone comes to you wanting to learn how to pray. They know virtually nothing

about Orthodoxy. Which would be more helpful, to give them a prayer book they

can actually read, or to insist that before they can learn to pray they must

first invest time and effort in learning how to read the language the prayers

are written in, with a number of letters that look alike and several that look

nothing like the modern language. Oh,

>  and don't forget, all the most important words are abbreviated, so you have

to memorize those separately.

>

> In Christ,

>

> Fr. Hermogen

>

> Yes, they do exist. But the Bulgarians and Romanians are

> using the modern language more often



Sorry, that should be the Bulgarians and the Serbs. The Romanians, of course,

serve in Romanian.

--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...> wrote:



> Dear Father,

>

> What I have seen is books that either omit the stresses or

> have

> them inconsistently, so that they are left out in every

> third

> word or so, or in more extended passages. For instance for

> one

> book that I have been using I have had to take the missing

> stresses from a classic orthography Sluzhebnik and other

> proper

> service books, or sometimes just to guess them.



Most prayer books I have seen only mark the stresses when the stress in Slavonic

differs from that in modern Russian.



  > Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block

> about

> > Slavonic, and assume that *they* could never possibly

> read

> > *that*.

>

> Well, that being the case, why not use Russian?



Well, that's a different issue altogether! But with most of my parishioners the

issue is specifically with the Slavonic script -- not so much with the text.



> The actual case for Bulgarians and Serbs is that virtually

> whatever they sing, they sing it in Slavonic.



I am aware of that; I was talking primarily about prayer books and collections

of services for the use of the faithful, and perhaps as an introductory aid to

readers who are learning Church Slavonic.



My point was not to argue for the extensive use of civil script instead of

Slavonic script, but instead to point out that those who print prayer books in

civil script actually have valid pastoral reasons for doing so. To deride them

as lazy or slovenly is unfair and unChristian.



I serve almost entirely in Slavonic. I love Slavonic, and I personally find the

use of civil script to write it quite annoying (though less so than when I first

began). I even agree with Stephen about his preference for old orthography civil

script over new orthography - though I prefer Slavonic script to both. I

encourage my parishioners, especially those on the kliros, to learn to read

Slavonic script, since we only have most of the service books in that script -

including some pre-revolutionary books that are falling apart, new editions from

Russia, and a couple of post-war Serbian books (which are nice for beginners

because they spell out most of the abbreviations).



But I am also realistic. My parishioners are 90%+ 1st generation immigrants,

some from after WWII, but mostly from the new wave. I have prayer books

available in both Slavonic script and new orthography (you can get them in old

orthography, but Jordanville editions are at American prices, and are thus too

expensive to hand out.) I can't keep the new orthography books in stock. I still

have plenty of the Slavonic-script books.



As far as reaidng for services, I typically only use the new orthography

editions of the Hours, etc. when my readers are absent and I have to draft

someone unexperienced. I also have one man who used to read the Hours on Sunday

using such a book, but he has since progressed to a standard chasoslov. In his

case, the training wheels worked.



No, Slavonic script is not that hard. Any educated Russian could pick it up

easily with just a little effort. The sad truth, however, is that most of them

are not going to make the effort until they are more churched. And they are not

going to become more churched until they learn to pray. Slavonic script and, to

a lesser extent, old orthography civil script, are, in my humble opinion,

unnecessary obstacles on the way to that goal. Some might argue that Slavonic

itself is an obstacle, but I have found that a good civil script prayer book

with a glossary goes a long way towards making Slavonic accessible to an

average, marginally churched, Russian speaker.



In Christ,



Fr. Hermogen

On 11.7.2009 21:23, William Holste wrote:

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...> wrote:

>> What I have seen is books that either omit the stresses or

>> have them inconsistently, so that they are left out in every

>> third word or so, or in more extended passages. For

>> instance for one book that I have been using I have had to

>> take the missing stresses from a classic orthography

>> Sluzhebnik and other proper service books, or sometimes just

>> to guess them.

>

> Most prayer books I have seen only mark the stresses when the

> stress in Slavonic differs from that in modern Russian.



I happen to have books in which some of the stresses have been

occasionally but not regularly omitted for the following types of

words:



1) Words existing in Russian whose stresses in Slavonic are on

the same syllable.



2) Words which, if they existed in Russian, were likely to have

the stress on the same syllable as in Slavonic.



3) Words which have been provided with stresses earlier on that

page or near it.



4) Any words in prayers and other texts whose stresses are

considered common knowledge by the editor.



5) Whole prayers that are considered "common".



6) Words for which the stresses have apparently been left out by

accident (or on the basis of some other strategy).



The result: books too unreliable to be used in public divine

services, unless checked in advance against reliable books and

corrected manually.



But certainly this makes little difference for a Russian

layperson casually reading prayers from the book where a stress

here and there is omitted, and they fail to figure it out correctly.



- Jopi Harri

I see nothing here to disagree with. My preferences are really the same:

polustav in traditional orthography is best, but civil script in old orthography

is perfectly acceptable for personal prayer books and for various other purposes

(sheet music for choirs, bulletins, anything of that sort. It is the traditional

liturgical books especially that should be kept in polustav script.



My original comments were not meant to refer to the issue of civil vs polustav,

but to the issue of old vs new orthography. I am more of a grump about new

orthography. It would be good if some printer in Russia could be commissioned to

print Slavonic in civil script with old orthography and accents.



The accent issue is a bit more complex than meets the eye. The present

orthographical conventions, incl. accents, are those proposed by Meletii

Smotryts'kyi in the early seventeenth century. Smotryts'kyi apparently wanted a

recension of Slavonic that would be acceptable Great-Russians, Bielarusions, and

Ukrainians alike. This is probably reflected in the placement of stress in the

words, although I have not seen a study of the topic. When the Russian books

arrived in the Balkans, the Balkan Orthodox Slavs accepted them as they stood

and to this day continue to print them with the Smotritskian accents, but where

they were accustomed to putting the stress elsewhere they continued to do so

orally, ignoring the printed accents. That remains the situation to the present.

Inevitably this gives rise to the accusation that the southern Slavs pronounce

Slavonic with "incorrect" accents, whereas their practice is in fact one

survival from the old days of national recensions of Slavonic. Carpatho-Rusyns

are notoriously for ignoring the printed accents, and are not even entirely

consistent among themselves in this respect.



Nor do the oldest neumated manuscripts consistently agree with the present

printed accents; see Margarete Ditterich, _Untersuchungen zum altrussischen

Akzent anhand von Kirchengesangshandschriften, Slavistische Beitr�ge (Munich:

Verlag Otto Sagner, 1975).



Stephen



--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, William Holste <wholste@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...> wrote:

>

> > Dear Father,

> >

> > What I have seen is books that either omit the stresses or

> > have

> > them inconsistently, so that they are left out in every

> > third

> > word or so, or in more extended passages. For instance for

> > one

> > book that I have been using I have had to take the missing

> > stresses from a classic orthography Sluzhebnik and other

> > proper

> > service books, or sometimes just to guess them.

>

> Most prayer books I have seen only mark the stresses when the stress in

Slavonic differs from that in modern Russian.

>

>  > Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block

> > about

> > > Slavonic, and assume that *they* could never possibly

> > read

> > > *that*.

> >

> > Well, that being the case, why not use Russian?

>

> Well, that's a different issue altogether! But with most of my parishioners

the issue is specifically with the Slavonic script -- not so much with the text.

>

> > The actual case for Bulgarians and Serbs is that virtually

> > whatever they sing, they sing it in Slavonic.

>

> I am aware of that; I was talking primarily about prayer books and collections

of services for the use of the faithful, and perhaps as an introductory aid to

readers who are learning Church Slavonic.

>

> My point was not to argue for the extensive use of civil script instead of

Slavonic script, but instead to point out that those who print prayer books in

civil script actually have valid pastoral reasons for doing so. To deride them

as lazy or slovenly is unfair and unChristian.

>

> I serve almost entirely in Slavonic. I love Slavonic, and I personally find

the use of civil script to write it quite annoying (though less so than when I

first began). I even agree with Stephen about his preference for old orthography

civil script over new orthography - though I prefer Slavonic script to both. I

encourage my parishioners, especially those on the kliros, to learn to read

Slavonic script, since we only have most of the service books in that script -

including some pre-revolutionary books that are falling apart, new editions from

Russia, and a couple of post-war Serbian books (which are nice for beginners

because they spell out most of the abbreviations).

>

> But I am also realistic. My parishioners are 90%+ 1st generation immigrants,

some from after WWII, but mostly from the new wave. I have prayer books

available in both Slavonic script and new orthography (you can get them in old

orthography, but Jordanville editions are at American prices, and are thus too

expensive to hand out.) I can't keep the new orthography books in stock. I still

have plenty of the Slavonic-script books.

>

> As far as reaidng for services, I typically only use the new orthography

editions of the Hours, etc. when my readers are absent and I have to draft

someone unexperienced. I also have one man who used to read the Hours on Sunday

using such a book, but he has since progressed to a standard chasoslov. In his

case, the training wheels worked.

>

> No, Slavonic script is not that hard. Any educated Russian could pick it up

easily with just a little effort. The sad truth, however, is that most of them

are not going to make the effort until they are more churched. And they are not

going to become more churched until they learn to pray. Slavonic script and, to

a lesser extent, old orthography civil script, are, in my humble opinion,

unnecessary obstacles on the way to that goal. Some might argue that Slavonic

itself is an obstacle, but I have found that a good civil script prayer book

with a glossary goes a long way towards making Slavonic accessible to an

average, marginally churched, Russian speaker.

>

> In Christ,

>

> Fr. Hermogen

>

Dear Fr. Hermogen,



Would it not be feasible to ask all the Slavonic readers to attend an evening

workshop? You could explain the importance of being able to read the Slavonic

text in the original alphabet (especially the historical continuity), and lead

them through a hands-on type of class that allows everyone to learn how to read

the "kirilitsa" text.



I have conducted two of these evening workshops, which I call "Slavonic for

Beginners" (although I was tempted to call it "Slavonic for Dummies" - haha!).

Both of these workshops were intended for people who could already read modern

orthography Russian, but had difficulties with the old orthography and the

shapes of the Slavonic letters. Both times it was a very successful endeavor,

and people who were too intimidated to learn the Slavonic script on their own

felt that it was much easier to learn it in a classroom situation where they

could learn from both the instructor and from everyone elses' questions and

answers. In addition, I lead them through a graded set of basic texts to allow

them to build up their speed of character recognition. (They also took home some

handouts, so that they could continue to practice.) This can all be accomplished

in one evening, but a follow-up class a week later is extremely helpful for

answering questions and group practice (i.e. people taking turns reading while

the instructor prompts and corrects).



Moreover, if you know your Slavonic well, there should not be much trouble

preparing some class notes and handouts. I teach Slavonic three nights a weeks

to school children (ages 8 to 18), and occasionally coach adults when they want

a "refresher" session to clean up bad practices, so I found it easy to conduct a

"Slavonic for Beginners" class with little preparation.



Some pointers: make photocopies (enlarged if possible) of some pages from Vl.

Alipii's Slavonic grammar book (published by Jordanville), including the listing

of the names of the letters and their pronunciation, the list of numbers and

their names, the list of titly, and anything else that might be useful. Don't

forget to coach them on using Slavonic pronunciation and NOT modern Russian

pronunciation (okan'e versus akan'e, not "yo" when it says "ye", etc).



Also prepare a few photocopies of some of the most basic prayers, such as the

Lord's Prayer, "It is truly meet", "Svete tikhi" (O joyous light), etc., and

some more advanced (moderate level of challenge) prayers such as "Spodobi

Gospodi", "Nyne otpushchaeshi", and the prayer from the Hours: "Izh na vsyako

vreme i na vsyak chas", etc. If they start out with familiar texts, the learning

process will go much easier and faster.



Another useful tool is a handout sheet which they should take home for later,

listing the common Slavonic words which are not found in Russian.

Short dictionary:

http://www.molitvoslov.info/slovar.html

or: http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/diclit1/Main.htm?mos



A much longer (and more useful) version:

http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0012.php



And if you don't want to prepare all your own materials, try these sites (or

recommend that folks work through them on their own at home):



http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/slovar_k/Main.htm (VERY HELPFUL!)

http://kuz1.pstbi.ccas.ru/institut/book/1997/kra.htm



Nikita



--- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, William Holste <wholste@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...> wrote:

>

> > Dear Father,

> >

> > What I have seen is books that either omit the stresses or

> > have

> > them inconsistently, so that they are left out in every

> > third

> > word or so, or in more extended passages. For instance for

> > one

> > book that I have been using I have had to take the missing

> > stresses from a classic orthography Sluzhebnik and other

> > proper

> > service books, or sometimes just to guess them.

>

> Most prayer books I have seen only mark the stresses when the stress in

Slavonic differs from that in modern Russian.

>

>  > Very few. Many of my parishioners have a mental block

> > about

> > > Slavonic, and assume that *they* could never possibly

> > read

> > > *that*.

> >

> > Well, that being the case, why not use Russian?

>

> Well, that's a different issue altogether! But with most of my parishioners

the issue is specifically with the Slavonic script -- not so much with the text.

>

> > The actual case for Bulgarians and Serbs is that virtually

> > whatever they sing, they sing it in Slavonic.

>

> I am aware of that; I was talking primarily about prayer books and collections

of services for the use of the faithful, and perhaps as an introductory aid to

readers who are learning Church Slavonic.

>

> My point was not to argue for the extensive use of civil script instead of

Slavonic script, but instead to point out that those who print prayer books in

civil script actually have valid pastoral reasons for doing so. To deride them

as lazy or slovenly is unfair and unChristian.

>

> I serve almost entirely in Slavonic. I love Slavonic, and I personally find

the use of civil script to write it quite annoying (though less so than when I

first began). I even agree with Stephen about his preference for old orthography

civil script over new orthography - though I prefer Slavonic script to both. I

encourage my parishioners, especially those on the kliros, to learn to read

Slavonic script, since we only have most of the service books in that script -

including some pre-revolutionary books that are falling apart, new editions from

Russia, and a couple of post-war Serbian books (which are nice for beginners

because they spell out most of the abbreviations).

>

> But I am also realistic. My parishioners are 90%+ 1st generation immigrants,

some from after WWII, but mostly from the new wave. I have prayer books

available in both Slavonic script and new orthography (you can get them in old

orthography, but Jordanville editions are at American prices, and are thus too

expensive to hand out.) I can't keep the new orthography books in stock. I still

have plenty of the Slavonic-script books.

>

> As far as reaidng for services, I typically only use the new orthography

editions of the Hours, etc. when my readers are absent and I have to draft

someone unexperienced. I also have one man who used to read the Hours on Sunday

using such a book, but he has since progressed to a standard chasoslov. In his

case, the training wheels worked.

>

> No, Slavonic script is not that hard. Any educated Russian could pick it up

easily with just a little effort. The sad truth, however, is that most of them

are not going to make the effort until they are more churched. And they are not

going to become more churched until they learn to pray. Slavonic script and, to

a lesser extent, old orthography civil script, are, in my humble opinion,

unnecessary obstacles on the way to that goal. Some might argue that Slavonic

itself is an obstacle, but I have found that a good civil script prayer book

with a glossary goes a long way towards making Slavonic accessible to an

average, marginally churched, Russian speaker.

>

> In Christ,

>

> Fr. Hermogen

>