David J. Peterson wrote:
> BPJ:
> <<
> How would you all react to a (non-Slavic) Cyrillic-based
> alphabet using upside-down Cyrillic {s} and {z} for /T/ and
> /D/? The idea is that a 19th century alphabet maker was able
> to turn existing lead types upside down to create new
> symbols, but not to add diacritics or wholly new shapes.
>  >>
> 
> Wasn't their a native Cyrillic character for /T/?  If I'm remember
> right, it looked like an upper case Roman V.  The letter I'm
> thinking of is a V with a little tail on the upper right.  It's pictured
> here, but it doesn't give it's value, unless I'm missing it:
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet>

No, that's the letter known in Russian as _izhitsa_ and is a stylized 
version of a medieval Greek upsilon.

It's the letter before it called _fita_ in Russian. It was he Greek 
_theta_ (the change [T] --> [f] is common in many varieties of 
colloquial southern Brit English).

Both fita and izhitsa were dropped in the Bolshevik spelling reform; but 
fita would be readily available to a 19th century alphabet marker. I 
would have thought that was the obvious candidate for /T/.

If this guy had recourse only to existing lead types, I guess what he 
would have done with /D/ is anyone's guess. It would depend, I think, 
whether he associated /D/ more closely with /d/ or with /z/ (or even 
/v/, as those English dialects that change [T] to [f] also change [D] to 
[v]). If the alphabet maker was acquainted with the Greek alphabet, it 
would seem more likely to me that he might have used an inverted 
Cyrillic /d/.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]