{"history":[],"article":{"id":"902b2049-390e-40b5-8c77-a7e07bd0df83","title":"Yat","slug":"yat","content":":::summary\n:::\n\n# \n**Yat** or **jat** (Ѣ ѣ; italics: Ѣ ѣ ) is the thirty-second letter of the [old Cyrillic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/early-cyrillic-alphabet).\nIt is usually [romanized](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanization) as E with a haček: Ě ě.\nThere is also another version of yat, the **iotated yat** (majuscule: ⟨⟩, minuscule: ⟨⟩), which is a Cyrillic character combining a [decimal I](https://bliptext.com/articles/decimal-i-cyrillic) and a yat.\nThere was no numerical value for this letter and it was not in the [Glagolitic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic-alphabet).\nIt was encoded in Unicode 5.1 at positions U+A652 and U+A653.\n# [Cyrillic letter yat, set in several fonts. Note that in italic, the lower-case (ѣ) resembles the iotated yat. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Russian///letter///Yat.svg]\n# [Alternate italic. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Italic///Cyrillic///Yat///in///Currall///%281918%29.png]\n\n# Usage\nYat represented a Common Slavic long [vowel](https://bliptext.com/articles/vowel), usually [notated](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic-language) as ⟨ě⟩.\nIt is g**e**n**e**r**a**lly b**e**li**e**v**e**d to h**a**v**e** r**e**pr**e**s**e**nt**e**d th**e** sound or, lik**e** th**e** pronunci**a**tion of ⟨**a**⟩ in \"c**a**t\" or ⟨**e**⟩ in \"**e**gg\", which w**a**s **a** r**e**fl**e**x of **e****a**rli**e**r Proto-Sl**a**vic * **a**nd *.\nThat the sound represented by yat developed late in the history of Common Slavic is indicated by its role in the [Slavic second palatalization](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-second-palatalization) of the Slavic [velar consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/velar-consonant).\nThe [Glagolitic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic-alphabet) contained only one letter for both yat ⟨110%⟩ and the Cyrillic [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a) ⟨110%⟩.\nAccording to [Kiril Mirchev](https://bliptext.com/articles/kiril-mirchev), this meant that ⟨110%⟩ after ⟨⟩ in the [Thessaloniki](https://bliptext.com/articles/thessaloniki) dialect (which served as a basis for [Old Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic)) mutated into a wide vowel that resembled or was the same as yat.\nTo this day, the most archaic Bulgarian dialects, i.e., the [Rup](https://bliptext.com/articles/rup-dialects) and [Moesian dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/moesian-dialects) feature a similar phonetic change where after [iota](https://bliptext.com/articles/iota-cyrillic) and the formerly palatal consonants ⟨110%⟩, ⟨110%⟩ and ⟨110%⟩ becomes , e.g. стоях -> стойêх (\"(I) was standing\"), пияница -> пийêница (\"drunkard\"), жаби -> жêби (\"frogs\"), etc. Dialects that still feature this phonetic change include the [Razlog dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/razlog-dialect), the [Smolyan dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/smolyan-dialect), the [Hvoyna dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/hvoyna-dialect), the [Strandzha dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/strandzha-dialect), individual subdialects in the [Thracian dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/thracian-dialect), the [Shumen dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/shumen-dialect), etc.\nThis problem did not exist in the Cyrillic alphabet, which had two separate letters for yat and [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a), ⟨110%⟩ and ⟨110%⟩.\nAny subsequent mix-ups of yat and iotated a and/or other vowels in [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) manuscripts are owing to the ongoing transformation of the Bulgarian vowel and consonant system in the [Late Middle Ages](https://bliptext.com/articles/late-middle-ages).\nAn extremely rare \"iotated yat\" form ⟨110%⟩ also exists, documented only in Svyatoslav's Izbornik from 1073.\n\n## Standard reflexes\nIn various modern [Slavic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages), yat has [reflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/linguistic-reconstruction) into various vowels.\nFor example, the Proto-Slavic root *bělъ \"white\" became:\n\n## Other reflexes\nOther reflexes of yat exist; for example:\n\n## Confusion with other letters\nDue to these reflexes, yat no longer represented an independent phoneme but an already existing one, represented by another Cyrillic letter.\nAs a result, children had to memorize by rote whether or not to write yat.\nTherefore, the letter was dropped in a series of [orthographic](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) reforms: in [Serbian](https://bliptext.com/articles/serbian-language) with the reform of [Vuk Karadžić](https://bliptext.com/articles/vuk-karad-i), in [Ukrainian-Ruthenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language) with the reform of [Panteleimon Kulish](https://bliptext.com/articles/panteleimon-kulish), later in [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language) and [Belarusian](https://bliptext.com/articles/belarusian-language) with the [Bolshevik reform in 1918](https://bliptext.com/articles/reforms-of-russian-orthography), and in [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Carpathian dialects of Ruthenian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/rusyn-language) as late as 1945.\nThe letter is no longer used in the standard modern orthography of any of the Slavic languages written with the [Cyrillic script](https://bliptext.com/articles/cyrillic-script), but survives in Ukrainian (Ruthenian) liturgical and church texts of [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language) in Ruthenian (Ukrainian) edition and in some written in the Russian [recension](https://bliptext.com/articles/recension) of [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language).\nIt has, since 1991, found some favor in [advertising](https://bliptext.com/articles/advertising) to deliberately invoke an archaic or \"old-timey\" style.\n\n## Bulgarian\nThe open articulation of yat (as or ) and the reflexes of Proto-Slavic *tj/*ktĭ/*gtĭ and *dj as ⟨щ⟩ and ⟨жд⟩ have traditionally been considered the two most distinctive phonetic features of Old Bulgarian.\nBased on the entire areas of modern [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language) are assumed to be have been ѣkavian/yakavian until the [Late Middle Ages](https://bliptext.com/articles/late-middle-ages).\nIn addition to the replacement of ⟨ꙗ⟩ with ⟨ѣ⟩ in a number of [Old](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) and [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) Cyrillic manuscripts—reflecting the mutation of [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a) into, the opposite process of mutation of yat into [palatalised consonant](https://bliptext.com/articles/palatalised-consonant) + was also underway.\nThe process affected primarily yat in stressed syllables followed by hard consonant, with multiple examples present in manuscripts from both West and East, e.g. the Grigorovich Prophetologion of the late 1100s (e.g., тꙗло instead of тѣло, \"body\"), the Tarnovo Gospel of 1273 (e.g, тꙗхъ instead of тѣхъ, \"them\"), the Strumitsa Apostle of the mid-1200s (e.g., прꙗмѫдро instead of прѣмѫдро, \"all-wise\"), etc.\nHowever, the most certain proof of yakavian pronunciation of ⟨ѣ⟩—and another confirmation that currently Ekavian dialects used to be Yakavian in the Middle Ages—comes from the use of hardened consonsant + a in yat's etymological place.\nWhile individual examples of hardened ⟨с⟩ or ⟨р⟩ + ⟨а⟩ can be found even in Old Bulgarian manuscripts, the mutation is most consistent after hardened ⟨ц⟩ and ⟨Dze⟩ in [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) manuscripts.\nThus, the Strumitsa Apostle, for example, features hosts of examples, e.g., цало instead of цѣлo (\"whole\", neutr. sing.), цаловати instead of цѣлoвати (\"to kiss\"), цаломѫдрьно instead of цѣломѫдрьно (\"chastely\"), рѫца instead of рѫцѣ (\"hands\", dual), etc. etc.\nAn opposite process of narrowing of yat into started in the west in the 1200s, with a first example of consistent replacement of ⟨ѣ⟩ with ⟨є⟩ in Tsar [Constantine Tikh](https://bliptext.com/articles/constantine-tikh)'s Virgin Charter of the early 1260s.\nThe Charter, which was written in [Skopje](https://bliptext.com/articles/skopje), predates the first Ekavian Serbian document (dated to 1289) by 15–20 years, which refutes the nationalistic claims of Serbian linguists, e.g. [Aleksandar Belić](https://bliptext.com/articles/aleksandar-beli) that Ekavism is a uniquely Serbian phenomenon and confirms, e.g., [nl:Nicolaas van Wijk](https://bliptext.com/articles/nl-nicolaas-van-wijk)'s theory that it is a native Western Bulgarian development.\nMirchev and Totomanova have linked the mutation of yat into to either consonant [depalatalization](https://bliptext.com/articles/palatalization-sound-change) in stressed syllables or to unstressed syllables.\nThus, those Bulgarian dialects that retained their palatalized consonants remained Yakavian in stressed syllables, whereas those that lost them moved towards Ekavism; unstressed yat, in turn, became practically everywhere.\nThis eventually led to the current dialectal division of [Eastern South Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eastern-south-slavic) into Eastern Bulgarian Yakavian and Western Bulgarian and Macedonian Ekavian.\nThe different reflexes of yat define the so-called yat boundary (ятова граница), which currently runs roughly from [Nikopol](https://bliptext.com/articles/nikopol-bulgaria) on the [Danube](https://bliptext.com/articles/danube) to [Thessaloniki](https://bliptext.com/articles/thessaloniki) on the [Aegean Sea](https://bliptext.com/articles/aegean-sea).\nWest of that [isogloss](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss), yat is always realized as.\nEast of it, there are different types of yakavism.\nStandard Bulgarian's alternation of yat between or in stressed syllable before a hard syllable/consonant and in all other cases is only characteristic of the [Balkan dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/balkan-dialects) (cf. Maps no. 1 & 2).\nExamples of the alternation in the standard language (and the [Balkan dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/balkan-dialects)) in the form (stressed, followed by hard consonant/syllable)→(stressed, followed by soft consonant/syllable)→(unstressed) follow below:\nThe [Moesian dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/moesian-dialects) in the northeast and the [Rup dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/rup-dialects) in the southeast feature a variety of other alternations, most commonly or in stressed syllable before hard consonant/syllable, in stressed syllable before soft consonant/syllable and in unstressed syllables (cf. Maps no. 1 & 2).\nThe open articulation as before hard consonant/syllable has survived only in isolated dialects, e.g., [Banat Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/banat-bulgarian-dialect) and in clusters along the yat boundary.\nThe open articulation as ⟨а⟩ after hardened ⟨ц⟩ survives as a remnant of former yakavism in a number of western Bulgarian and eastern Macedonian dialects (cf. Map no. 3).\nAs the yat boundary is only one of many [isoglosses](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss) that divides the dialects of [Eastern South Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eastern-south-slavic) into Western and Eastern, the term \"[Yat Isogloss Belt](https://bliptext.com/articles/yat-isogloss-belt)\" has recently superseded the term \"yat boundary\".\nThe Belt unifies Yakavian and Ekavian dialects with mixed, Western and Eastern traits into a buffer zone that ensures a gradual transition between the two major dialect groups.\nFrom the late 19th century until 1945, standard Bulgarian orthography did not reflect the and alternation and used the Cyrillic letter ⟨ѣ⟩ for both in yat's etymological place.\nThis was regarded as a way to maintain unity between Eastern and Western Bulgarians, as much of what was then seen as Western Bulgarian dialects was under foreign control.\nHowever, this also complicated orthography for a country that was generally Eastern-speaking.\nThere were several attempts to restrict the use of the letter only to those word forms where there was a difference in pronunciation between Eastern and Western Bulgarian (e.g., in the failed orthographic reform of 1892 and in several proposals by professor [Stefan Mladenov](https://bliptext.com/articles/stefan-mladenov) in the 1920s and 1930s), but the use of the letter remained largely etymological.\nIn response, in the [Interwar period](https://bliptext.com/articles/interwar-period), the [Bulgarian Communist Party](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-communist-party) started referring to the letter as a manifestation of \"class elitism\" and \"Greater Bulgarian Chauvinism\" and made its elimination a top priority.\nConsequently, after Bulgaria's [occupation by the Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgaria-during-world-war-ii) in 1944 and the installation of a puppet government headed by the communists, ⟨ѣ⟩ was summarily thrown of the Bulgarian alphabet and the spelling changed to conform to the Eastern pronunciation by an orthographic reform in 1945 despite any objections.\nAfter 1989, the elimination of yat from the alphabet has generally been regarded as a violation of the unity of the Bulgarian language, in particular, in right-leaning circles, and nationalistic parties like [VMRO-BND](https://bliptext.com/articles/vmro-bnd) have campaigned, unsuccessfully, for its reintroduction.\nNotably, the [Macedonian Patriotic Organization](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-patriotic-organization), an organisation of [Macedonian Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-bulgarian) emigrants in [North America](https://bliptext.com/articles/north-america), continued to use ⟨ѣ⟩ in the Bulgarian edition of newsletter, Macedonian Tribune, until it switched to an English-only version in the early 1990s.\n\n## Russian\nIn [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language), written confusion between the yat and ⟨е⟩ appears in the earliest records; when exactly the distinction finally disappeared in speech is a topic of debate.\nSome scholars, for example W. K. Matthews, have placed the merger of the two sounds at the earliest historical phases (the 11th century or earlier), attributing its use until 1918 to [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language) influence.\nWithin Russia itself, however, a consensus has found its way into university textbooks of historical grammar (e.g., [V. V. Ivanov](https://bliptext.com/articles/vyacheslav-ivanov-philologist)), that, taking all the dialects into account, the sounds remained predominantly distinct until the 18th century, at least under stress, and are distinct to this day in some localities.\nMeanwhile, the yat in [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language) usually merged in sound with instead (see below).\nThe story of the letter yat and its elimination from the [Russian alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-alphabet) makes for an interesting footnote in Russian cultural history.\nSee [Reforms of Russian orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/reforms-of-russian-orthography) for details.\nA full list of words that were written with the letter yat at the beginning of 20th century can be found [in the Russian Wikipedia](https://bliptext.com/articles/ru).\nA few inflections and common words were distinguished in spelling by ⟨е⟩ / ⟨ѣ⟩ (for example: ѣ́сть / е́сть \"to eat\" / \"(there) is\"; лѣчу́ / лечу́ \"I heal\" / \"I fly\"; синѣ́е / си́нее, \"bluer\" / \"blue\" (n.); вѣ́дѣніе / веде́ніе , \"knowledge\" / \"leadership\").\nThe retention of the letter without discussion in the [Petrine](https://bliptext.com/articles/peter-i-of-russia) reform of the Russian alphabet of 1708 indicates that it then still marked a distinct sound in the Moscow [koiné](https://bliptext.com/articles/koin-language) of the time.\nHowever, in 1748 an early proposal for partial revision of the usage of ⟨ѣ⟩ was made by [Vasily Trediakovsky](https://bliptext.com/articles/vasily-kirillovich-trediakovsky).\nThe [polymath](https://bliptext.com/articles/polymath) [Lomonosov](https://bliptext.com/articles/mikhail-lomonosov) in his 1755 grammar noted that the sound of ⟨ѣ⟩ was scarcely distinguishable from that of the letter ⟨е⟩, although he firmly defended their distinction in spelling.\nA century later (1878) the philologist Grot stated flatly in his standard Russian orthography (Русское правописаніе, Russkoje pravopisanije) that in the common language there was no difference whatsoever between their pronunciations.\nHowever, [dialectal](https://bliptext.com/articles/dialect) studies in the 20th century have shown that, in certain regional dialects, a phonemically distinct reflex of *ě has still been retained.\nSome reflexes of ⟨ѣ⟩ have further evolved into, especially in inflected forms of words where ⟨ѣ⟩ have become stressed, while the [dictionary form](https://bliptext.com/articles/lemma-morphology) has it unstressed.\nOne such example is звѣзда \"star\" against звѣзды \"stars\".\nSome dictionaries used a yat with a [diaeresis](https://bliptext.com/articles/diaeresis-diacritic), ⟨ѣ̈⟩, to denote this sound, in a similar fashion to the creation of the letter ⟨ё⟩.\nA proposal for spelling reform from the [Russian Academy of Science](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-academy-of-science) in 1911 included, among other matters, the systematic elimination of the yat, but was declined at the highest level.\nAccording to [Lev Uspensky](https://bliptext.com/articles/lev-uspensky)'s [popular](https://bliptext.com/articles/popular-science) linguistics book A Word on Words (Слово о словах), yat was \"the monster-letter, the scarecrow-letter ... which was washed with the tears of countless generations of Russian schoolchildren\".\nThe schoolchildren made use of [mnemonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/mnemonic) nonsense verses made up of words with ⟨ѣ⟩:\nThe spelling reform was promulgated by the [Provisional Government](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-provisional-government-1917) in the summer of 1917.\nHowever, it was not implemented under the prevailing conditions.\nAfter the [Bolshevik Revolution](https://bliptext.com/articles/bolshevik-revolution), the new regime took up the Provisional Drafts, implementing them minor deviations.\n[Orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) came to be viewed by many as an issue of [politics](https://bliptext.com/articles/politics), and the letter yat its primary symbol.\nÉmigré Russians generally adhered to the old spelling until after [World War II](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-war-ii); long and impassioned essays were written in its defense, as by [Ivan Ilyin](https://bliptext.com/articles/ivan-ilyin) in 1952 (О русскомъ правописаніи, O russkom pravopisanii).\nEven in the [Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/soviet-union), it is said that some printing shops continued to use the eliminated letters until their blocks of type were forcibly removed; the Academy of Sciences published its annals in the old orthography until approximately 1924.\nThe older spelling practice within Russia was ended thourgh government pressure as well as by the large-scale [campaign for literacy](https://bliptext.com/articles/likbez) in 1920s and 1930s, conducted in accordance with the new norm.\nAccording to the reform, yat was replaced by ⟨е⟩ in most words, e.g. дѣти, совѣтъ became дети, совет; for a small number of words it was replaced by ⟨и⟩ instead, according to pronunciation: онѣ ('those', feminine), однѣ ('one', feminine plural), однѣхъ, однѣмъ, однѣми (declined forms of однѣ were replaced with они, одни, одних, одним, одними.\nAfter the [dissolution of the Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/dissolution-of-the-soviet-union), as a tendency occasionally to mimic the past appeared in [Russia](https://bliptext.com/articles/russia), the old spelling became fashionable in some brand names and the like, as [archaisms](https://bliptext.com/articles/archaism), specifically as \"[sensational spellings](https://bliptext.com/articles/sensational-spelling)\".\nFor example, the name of the business newspaper [Kommersant](https://bliptext.com/articles/kommersant) appears on its masthead with a word-final [hard sign](https://bliptext.com/articles/hard-sign), which is superfluous in modern orthography: \"Коммерсантъ\".\nCalls for the reintroduction of the old spelling were heard, though not taken seriously, as supporters of the yat described it as \"that most Russian of letters\", and the \"white swan\" (бѣлый лебедь) of Russian spelling.\n# [Pre-revolution typewriter with Yat on the bottom row, between Ч and С. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Fox///Typewriter///24///with///Russian///layout.JPG]\n# [Cover of 1880 edition of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, with yat in the title; in modern orthography, дѣти is spelled дети. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Fathers///and///Sons///cover///-///retouched.jpg]\n\n## Ukrainian\nIn [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language), yat has traditionally represented or.\nIn modern Ukrainian orthography its reflexes are represented by ⟨і⟩ or ⟨ї⟩.\nAs Ukrainian philologist Volodymyr Hlushchenko notes that initially in proto-Ukrainian tongues yat used to represent or which around 13th century transitioned into.\nYet, in some phonetic Ukrainian orthographies from the 19th century, it was used to represent both or as well as.\nThis corresponds more with the Russian pronunciation of yat rather than actual word etymologies.\nReturn to or pronunciation was initiated by the Pavlovsky \"Grammar of the Little Russian dialect\" (1818) according to Hryhoriy Pivtorak.\nWhile in the same \"Grammar\" Pavlovsky states that among Little Russians \"yat\" is pronounced as (Ѣ произносится какъ Россїйское мягкое j. на пр: ні́жный, лі́то, слідъ, тінь, сі́но.).\nThe modern Ukrainian letter ⟨є⟩ has the same phonetic function.\nSeveral Ukrainian orthographies with the different ways of using yat and without yat co-existed in the same time during the 19th century, and most of them were discarded before the 20th century.\nAfter the middle of the 19th century, orthographies without yat dominated in the Eastern part of Ukraine, and after the end of the 19th century they dominated in [Galicia](https://bliptext.com/articles/galicia-central-europe).\nHowever, in 1876–1905 the only Russian officially legalized orthography in the Eastern Ukraine was based on Russian phonetic system (with yat for ) and in the Western Ukraine (mostly in [Carpathian Ruthenia](https://bliptext.com/articles/carpathian-ruthenia)) orthography with yat for was used before 1945; in the rest of the western Ukraine (not subjected to the limitations made by the Russian Empire) the so-called \"orthographic wars\" ended up in receiving a uniformed phonetic system which replaced yat with either or (it was used officially for Ukrainian language in the Austrian Empire).\n'New yat' is a reflex of (which merged with yat in Ukrainian) in closed syllables.\nNew yat is not related to the Proto-Slavic yat, but it has frequently been represented by the same sign.\nUsing yat instead of ⟨е⟩ in this position was a common after the 12th century.\nWith the later phonological evolution of Ukrainian, both yat and new yat evolved into or.\nSome other sounds also evolved to the sound so that some Ukrainian texts from between the 17th and 19th centuries used the same letter (⟨и⟩ or yat) uniformly rather than variation between yat, new yat, ⟨и⟩, and reflex of ⟨о⟩ in closed syllables, but using yat to unify all i-sounded vowels was less common, and so 'new yat' usually means letter yat in the place of i-sounded ⟨е⟩ only.\nIn some etymology-based orthography systems of the 19th century, yat was represented by ⟨ѣ⟩ and new yat was replaced with ⟨ê⟩ (⟨e⟩ with circumflex).\nAt this same time, the Ukrainian writing system replaced yat and new yat by ⟨і⟩ or ⟨ї⟩.\n\n## Rusyn\nIn [Rusyn](https://bliptext.com/articles/rusyn-language), yat was used until 1945.\nIn modern times, some Rusyn writers and poets try to reinstate it, but this initiative is not really popular among Rusyn [intelligentsia](https://bliptext.com/articles/intelligentsia).\n\n## Romanian\nIn the old [Romanian Cyrillic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanian-cyrillic-alphabet), the yat, called eati, was used as the diphthong.\nIt disappeared when Romanian adopted the transitional alphabet, first in [Wallachia](https://bliptext.com/articles/wallachia), then in [Moldavia](https://bliptext.com/articles/moldavia).\n\n## Serbo-Croatian\nThe Old Serbo-Croatian yat phoneme is assumed to have a phonetic value articulatory between the vowels and.\nIn the [Štokavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tokavian) and [Čakavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/akavian) vowel systems, this phoneme lost a back vowel parallel; the tendency towards articulatory symmetry led to its merging with other phonemes.\nOn the other hand, most [Kajkavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/kajkavian) dialects did have a back vowel parallel (a reflex of *ǫ and *l̥), and both the front and back vowels were retained in most of these dialects' vowel system before merging with a reflex of a vocalized [Yer](https://bliptext.com/articles/yer) (*ь).\nThus the Kajkavian vowel system has a symmetry between front and back closed vocalic phonemes: */ẹ/ (< */ě/, */ь/) and */ọ/ (< */ǫ/, */l̥/).\nČakavian dialects utilized both possibilities of establishing symmetry of vowels by developing Ikavian and Ekavian reflexes, as well as \"guarding the old yat\" at northern borders (Buzet dialect).\nAccording to yat reflex Čakavian dialects are divided to Ikavian (mostly South Čakavian), Ekavian (North Čakavian) and mixed Ikavian-Ekavian (Middle Čakavian), in which mixed Ikavian-Ekavian reflex is conditioned by following phonemes according to [Jakubinskij's law](https://bliptext.com/articles/jakubinskij-s-law) (e.g. sled : sliditi < [PSl.](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) *slědъ : *slěditi; del : diliti < *dělъ : *děliti).\nMixed Ikavian-Ekavian Čakavian dialects have been heavily influenced by [analogy](https://bliptext.com/articles/analogy) (influence of nominative form on [oblique cases](https://bliptext.com/articles/oblique-case), infinitive on other verbal forms, word stem onto derivations etc.).\nThe only exception among Čakavian dialects is [Lastovo](https://bliptext.com/articles/lastovo) island and the village of [Janjina](https://bliptext.com/articles/janjina), with Jekavian reflex of yat.\nThe most complex development of yat has occurred in Štokavian, namely Ijekavian Štokavian dialects which are used as a dialectal basis for modern standard Serbo-Croatian variants, and that makes the reflexes of yat one of the central issues of Serbo-Croatian orthoepy and orthography.\nIn most Croatian Štokavian dialects yat has yielded diphthongal sequence of in long and short syllables.\nThe position of this diphthong is equally unstable as that of closed *, which has led to its dephonologization.\nShort diphthong has thus turned to diphonemic sequence, and long to disyllabic (triphonemic) , but that outcome is not the only one in Štokavian dialects, so the pronunciation of long yat in Neo-Štokavian dialects can be both monosyllabic (diphthongal or triphthongal) and disyllabic (triphonemic).\nHowever, that process has been completed in dialects which serve as a dialectal basis for the orthographical codification of Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian.\nIn writing, the diphthong is represented by the trigraph ⟨ije⟩ – this particular inconsistency being a remnant of the late 19th century codification efforts, which planned to redesign common standard language for Croats and Serbs.\nThis culminated in the [Novi Sad agreement](https://bliptext.com/articles/novi-sad-agreement) and \"common\" orthography and dictionary.\nDigraphic spelling of a diphthong as e.g. was used by some 19th-century Croat writers who promoted so-called \"etymological orthography\" – in fact [morpho-phonemic orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) which was advocated by some Croatian philological schools of the time ([Zagreb philological school](https://bliptext.com/articles/zagreb-philological-school)), and which was even official during the brief period of the fascist [Independent State of Croatia](https://bliptext.com/articles/independent-state-of-croatia) (1941–1945).\nIn standard Croatian, although standard orthography is ⟨ije⟩ for long yat, standard pronunciation is.\nSerbian has two standards: Ijekavian is for long yat and Ekavian which uses for short and for long yat.\nStandard Bosnian and Montenegrin use for short and for long yat.\nDephonologization of diphthongal yat reflex could also be caused by [assimilation](https://bliptext.com/articles/assimilation-linguistics) within diphthong itself: if the first part of a diphthong assimilates secondary part, so-called secondary Ikavian reflex develops; and if the second part of a diphthong assimilates the first part secondary Ekavian reflex develops.\nMost Štokavian Ikavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian are exactly such – secondary Ikavian dialects, and from Ekavian dialects secondary are the Štokavian Ekavian dialects of Slavonian [Podravina](https://bliptext.com/articles/podravina) and most of Serbia.\nThey have a common origin with Ijekavian Štokavian dialects in a sense of developing yat reflex as diphthongal reflex.\nSome dialects also \"guard\" older yat sound, and some reflexes are probably direct from yat.\nDirect Ikavian, Ekavian and mixed reflexes of yat in Čakavian dialects are a much older phenomenon, which has some traces in written monuments and is estimated to have been completed in the 13th century.\nThe practice of using old yat phoneme in [Glagolitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic) and [Bosnian Cyrillic](https://bliptext.com/articles/bosnian-cyrillic) writings in which Serbo-Croatian was written in the centuries that followed was a consequence of conservative scribe tradition.\nCroatian linguists also speak of two Štokavians, Western Štokavian (also called Šćakavian) which retained yat longer, and Eastern Štokavian which \"lost\" yat sooner, probably under (western) Bulgarian influences.\nAreas which bordered Kajkavian dialects mostly retained yat, areas which bordered Čakavian dialects mostly had secondary Ikavisation, and areas which bordered (western) Bulgarian dialects mostly had secondary Ekavisation.\n\"Core\" areas remained Ijekavian, although western part of the \"core\" became monosyllabic for old long yat.\nReflexes of yat in Ijekavian dialects are from the very start dependent on syllable quantity.\nAs it has already been said, standard Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian writes trigraph ⟨ije⟩ at the place of old long yat, which is in standard pronunciation manifested disyllabically (within Croatian standard monosyllabic pronunciation), and writes ⟨je⟩ at the place of short yat.\nE.g. bijȇl < [PSl.](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) *bělъ, mlijéko < *mlěko < by [liquid metathesis](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis) from *melkò, brijȇg < *brěgъ < by [liquid metathesis](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis) from *bȇrgъ, but mjȅsto < *mě̀sto, vjȅra < *vě̀ra, mjȅra < *mě̀ra.\nThere are however some limitations; in front of and (< word-final ) yat has a reflex of short.\nIn scenarios when is not substituted by, i.e. not word-finally (which is a common Štokavian isogloss), yat reflex is also different.\nE.g. grijati < *grějati, sijati < *sějati, bijaše < *bějaše; but htio : htjela < *htělъ : *htěla, letio : letjela (< *letělъ : *letěla).\nThe standard language also allows some doublets to coexist, e.g. cȉo and cijȇl < *cě̑lъ, bȉo and bijȇl < *bě́lъ.\nShort yat has reflexes of and behind in consonant clusters, e.g. brȅgovi and brjȅgovi, grehòta and grjehòta, strèlica and strjèlica, etc.\nIf short syllable with yat in the word stem lengthens due to the phonetic or morphological conditions, reflex of is preserved, e.g. djȅlo – djȇlā, nèdjelja – nȅdjēljā.\nIn modern standard Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian varieties syllables that carry yat reflexes are recognized by [alternations](https://bliptext.com/articles/apophony) in various inflected forms of the same word or in different words derived from the same stem.\nThese alternating sequences are dependent on syllable quantity.\nBeside modern reflexes they also encompass apophonic alternations inherited from [Proto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) and [Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-ablaut) times, which were also conditioned by quantitative alternations of root syllable, e.g. ùmrijēti – ȕmrēm, lȉti – lijévati etc. These alternations also show the difference between the diphthongal syllables with Ijekavian reflex of yat and syllables with primary phonemic sequence of, which has nothing to do with yat and which never shows alternation in inflected forms, e.g. zmìje, nijèdan, òrijent, etc.\n# [Nationalist take on the border between Serbian and Bulgarian that classifies all ekavian Bulgarian dialects as Serbian. By Aleksandar Belić (1914) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Balkan///dialects///belic///1914.jpg]\n# [Nationalist take on the border between Croatian and Serbian that classifies all ijekavian Serbian dialects as Croatian. By Tomo Matasic (1985) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Boundary///between///Croatian///and///Serbian///according///to///Matasic///%281985%29.jpg]\n\n# Computing codes\n\n# Sources","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-25T19:52:13.422Z","updated_at":"2025-01-25T19:52:13.422Z","search_vector":"'yat':1","search_content":" \n \n\n# \n**Yat** or **jat** (Ѣ ѣ; italics: Ѣ ѣ ) is the thirty-second letter of the [old Cyrillic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/early-cyrillic-alphabet).\nIt is usually [romanized](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanization) as E with a haček: Ě ě.\nThere is also another version of yat, the **iotated yat** (majuscule: ⟨⟩, minuscule: ⟨⟩), which is a Cyrillic character combining a [decimal I](https://bliptext.com/articles/decimal-i-cyrillic) and a yat.\nThere was no numerical value for this letter and it was not in the [Glagolitic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic-alphabet).\nIt was encoded in Unicode 5.1 at positions U+A652 and U+A653.\n# [Cyrillic letter yat, set in several fonts. Note that in italic, the lower-case (ѣ) resembles the iotated yat. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Russian///letter///Yat.svg]\n# [Alternate italic. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Italic///Cyrillic///Yat///in///Currall///%281918%29.png]\n\n# Usage\nYat represented a Common Slavic long [vowel](https://bliptext.com/articles/vowel), usually [notated](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic-language) as ⟨ě⟩.\nIt is g**e**n**e**r**a**lly b**e**li**e**v**e**d to h**a**v**e** r**e**pr**e**s**e**nt**e**d th**e** sound or, lik**e** th**e** pronunci**a**tion of ⟨**a**⟩ in \"c**a**t\" or ⟨**e**⟩ in \"**e**gg\", which w**a**s **a** r**e**fl**e**x of **e****a**rli**e**r Proto-Sl**a**vic * **a**nd *.\nThat the sound represented by yat developed late in the history of Common Slavic is indicated by its role in the [Slavic second palatalization](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-second-palatalization) of the Slavic [velar consonants](https://bliptext.com/articles/velar-consonant).\nThe [Glagolitic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic-alphabet) contained only one letter for both yat ⟨110%⟩ and the Cyrillic [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a) ⟨110%⟩.\nAccording to [Kiril Mirchev](https://bliptext.com/articles/kiril-mirchev), this meant that ⟨110%⟩ after ⟨⟩ in the [Thessaloniki](https://bliptext.com/articles/thessaloniki) dialect (which served as a basis for [Old Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic)) mutated into a wide vowel that resembled or was the same as yat.\nTo this day, the most archaic Bulgarian dialects, i.e., the [Rup](https://bliptext.com/articles/rup-dialects) and [Moesian dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/moesian-dialects) feature a similar phonetic change where after [iota](https://bliptext.com/articles/iota-cyrillic) and the formerly palatal consonants ⟨110%⟩, ⟨110%⟩ and ⟨110%⟩ becomes , e.g. стоях -> стойêх (\"(I) was standing\"), пияница -> пийêница (\"drunkard\"), жаби -> жêби (\"frogs\"), etc. Dialects that still feature this phonetic change include the [Razlog dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/razlog-dialect), the [Smolyan dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/smolyan-dialect), the [Hvoyna dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/hvoyna-dialect), the [Strandzha dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/strandzha-dialect), individual subdialects in the [Thracian dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/thracian-dialect), the [Shumen dialect](https://bliptext.com/articles/shumen-dialect), etc.\nThis problem did not exist in the Cyrillic alphabet, which had two separate letters for yat and [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a), ⟨110%⟩ and ⟨110%⟩.\nAny subsequent mix-ups of yat and iotated a and/or other vowels in [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) manuscripts are owing to the ongoing transformation of the Bulgarian vowel and consonant system in the [Late Middle Ages](https://bliptext.com/articles/late-middle-ages).\nAn extremely rare \"iotated yat\" form ⟨110%⟩ also exists, documented only in Svyatoslav's Izbornik from 1073.\n\n## Standard reflexes\nIn various modern [Slavic languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages), yat has [reflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/linguistic-reconstruction) into various vowels.\nFor example, the Proto-Slavic root *bělъ \"white\" became:\n\n## Other reflexes\nOther reflexes of yat exist; for example:\n\n## Confusion with other letters\nDue to these reflexes, yat no longer represented an independent phoneme but an already existing one, represented by another Cyrillic letter.\nAs a result, children had to memorize by rote whether or not to write yat.\nTherefore, the letter was dropped in a series of [orthographic](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) reforms: in [Serbian](https://bliptext.com/articles/serbian-language) with the reform of [Vuk Karadžić](https://bliptext.com/articles/vuk-karad-i), in [Ukrainian-Ruthenian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language) with the reform of [Panteleimon Kulish](https://bliptext.com/articles/panteleimon-kulish), later in [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language) and [Belarusian](https://bliptext.com/articles/belarusian-language) with the [Bolshevik reform in 1918](https://bliptext.com/articles/reforms-of-russian-orthography), and in [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Carpathian dialects of Ruthenian language](https://bliptext.com/articles/rusyn-language) as late as 1945.\nThe letter is no longer used in the standard modern orthography of any of the Slavic languages written with the [Cyrillic script](https://bliptext.com/articles/cyrillic-script), but survives in Ukrainian (Ruthenian) liturgical and church texts of [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language) in Ruthenian (Ukrainian) edition and in some written in the Russian [recension](https://bliptext.com/articles/recension) of [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language).\nIt has, since 1991, found some favor in [advertising](https://bliptext.com/articles/advertising) to deliberately invoke an archaic or \"old-timey\" style.\n\n## Bulgarian\nThe open articulation of yat (as or ) and the reflexes of Proto-Slavic *tj/*ktĭ/*gtĭ and *dj as ⟨щ⟩ and ⟨жд⟩ have traditionally been considered the two most distinctive phonetic features of Old Bulgarian.\nBased on the entire areas of modern [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language) are assumed to be have been ѣkavian/yakavian until the [Late Middle Ages](https://bliptext.com/articles/late-middle-ages).\nIn addition to the replacement of ⟨ꙗ⟩ with ⟨ѣ⟩ in a number of [Old](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) and [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) Cyrillic manuscripts—reflecting the mutation of [iotated a](https://bliptext.com/articles/iotated-a) into, the opposite process of mutation of yat into [palatalised consonant](https://bliptext.com/articles/palatalised-consonant) + was also underway.\nThe process affected primarily yat in stressed syllables followed by hard consonant, with multiple examples present in manuscripts from both West and East, e.g. the Grigorovich Prophetologion of the late 1100s (e.g., тꙗло instead of тѣло, \"body\"), the Tarnovo Gospel of 1273 (e.g, тꙗхъ instead of тѣхъ, \"them\"), the Strumitsa Apostle of the mid-1200s (e.g., прꙗмѫдро instead of прѣмѫдро, \"all-wise\"), etc.\nHowever, the most certain proof of yakavian pronunciation of ⟨ѣ⟩—and another confirmation that currently Ekavian dialects used to be Yakavian in the Middle Ages—comes from the use of hardened consonsant + a in yat's etymological place.\nWhile individual examples of hardened ⟨с⟩ or ⟨р⟩ + ⟨а⟩ can be found even in Old Bulgarian manuscripts, the mutation is most consistent after hardened ⟨ц⟩ and ⟨Dze⟩ in [Middle Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-church-slavonic) manuscripts.\nThus, the Strumitsa Apostle, for example, features hosts of examples, e.g., цало instead of цѣлo (\"whole\", neutr. sing.), цаловати instead of цѣлoвати (\"to kiss\"), цаломѫдрьно instead of цѣломѫдрьно (\"chastely\"), рѫца instead of рѫцѣ (\"hands\", dual), etc. etc.\nAn opposite process of narrowing of yat into started in the west in the 1200s, with a first example of consistent replacement of ⟨ѣ⟩ with ⟨є⟩ in Tsar [Constantine Tikh](https://bliptext.com/articles/constantine-tikh)'s Virgin Charter of the early 1260s.\nThe Charter, which was written in [Skopje](https://bliptext.com/articles/skopje), predates the first Ekavian Serbian document (dated to 1289) by 15–20 years, which refutes the nationalistic claims of Serbian linguists, e.g. [Aleksandar Belić](https://bliptext.com/articles/aleksandar-beli) that Ekavism is a uniquely Serbian phenomenon and confirms, e.g., [nl:Nicolaas van Wijk](https://bliptext.com/articles/nl-nicolaas-van-wijk)'s theory that it is a native Western Bulgarian development.\nMirchev and Totomanova have linked the mutation of yat into to either consonant [depalatalization](https://bliptext.com/articles/palatalization-sound-change) in stressed syllables or to unstressed syllables.\nThus, those Bulgarian dialects that retained their palatalized consonants remained Yakavian in stressed syllables, whereas those that lost them moved towards Ekavism; unstressed yat, in turn, became practically everywhere.\nThis eventually led to the current dialectal division of [Eastern South Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eastern-south-slavic) into Eastern Bulgarian Yakavian and Western Bulgarian and Macedonian Ekavian.\nThe different reflexes of yat define the so-called yat boundary (ятова граница), which currently runs roughly from [Nikopol](https://bliptext.com/articles/nikopol-bulgaria) on the [Danube](https://bliptext.com/articles/danube) to [Thessaloniki](https://bliptext.com/articles/thessaloniki) on the [Aegean Sea](https://bliptext.com/articles/aegean-sea).\nWest of that [isogloss](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss), yat is always realized as.\nEast of it, there are different types of yakavism.\nStandard Bulgarian's alternation of yat between or in stressed syllable before a hard syllable/consonant and in all other cases is only characteristic of the [Balkan dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/balkan-dialects) (cf. Maps no. 1 & 2).\nExamples of the alternation in the standard language (and the [Balkan dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/balkan-dialects)) in the form (stressed, followed by hard consonant/syllable)→(stressed, followed by soft consonant/syllable)→(unstressed) follow below:\nThe [Moesian dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/moesian-dialects) in the northeast and the [Rup dialects](https://bliptext.com/articles/rup-dialects) in the southeast feature a variety of other alternations, most commonly or in stressed syllable before hard consonant/syllable, in stressed syllable before soft consonant/syllable and in unstressed syllables (cf. Maps no. 1 & 2).\nThe open articulation as before hard consonant/syllable has survived only in isolated dialects, e.g., [Banat Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/banat-bulgarian-dialect) and in clusters along the yat boundary.\nThe open articulation as ⟨а⟩ after hardened ⟨ц⟩ survives as a remnant of former yakavism in a number of western Bulgarian and eastern Macedonian dialects (cf. Map no. 3).\nAs the yat boundary is only one of many [isoglosses](https://bliptext.com/articles/isogloss) that divides the dialects of [Eastern South Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eastern-south-slavic) into Western and Eastern, the term \"[Yat Isogloss Belt](https://bliptext.com/articles/yat-isogloss-belt)\" has recently superseded the term \"yat boundary\".\nThe Belt unifies Yakavian and Ekavian dialects with mixed, Western and Eastern traits into a buffer zone that ensures a gradual transition between the two major dialect groups.\nFrom the late 19th century until 1945, standard Bulgarian orthography did not reflect the and alternation and used the Cyrillic letter ⟨ѣ⟩ for both in yat's etymological place.\nThis was regarded as a way to maintain unity between Eastern and Western Bulgarians, as much of what was then seen as Western Bulgarian dialects was under foreign control.\nHowever, this also complicated orthography for a country that was generally Eastern-speaking.\nThere were several attempts to restrict the use of the letter only to those word forms where there was a difference in pronunciation between Eastern and Western Bulgarian (e.g., in the failed orthographic reform of 1892 and in several proposals by professor [Stefan Mladenov](https://bliptext.com/articles/stefan-mladenov) in the 1920s and 1930s), but the use of the letter remained largely etymological.\nIn response, in the [Interwar period](https://bliptext.com/articles/interwar-period), the [Bulgarian Communist Party](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-communist-party) started referring to the letter as a manifestation of \"class elitism\" and \"Greater Bulgarian Chauvinism\" and made its elimination a top priority.\nConsequently, after Bulgaria's [occupation by the Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgaria-during-world-war-ii) in 1944 and the installation of a puppet government headed by the communists, ⟨ѣ⟩ was summarily thrown of the Bulgarian alphabet and the spelling changed to conform to the Eastern pronunciation by an orthographic reform in 1945 despite any objections.\nAfter 1989, the elimination of yat from the alphabet has generally been regarded as a violation of the unity of the Bulgarian language, in particular, in right-leaning circles, and nationalistic parties like [VMRO-BND](https://bliptext.com/articles/vmro-bnd) have campaigned, unsuccessfully, for its reintroduction.\nNotably, the [Macedonian Patriotic Organization](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-patriotic-organization), an organisation of [Macedonian Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-bulgarian) emigrants in [North America](https://bliptext.com/articles/north-america), continued to use ⟨ѣ⟩ in the Bulgarian edition of newsletter, Macedonian Tribune, until it switched to an English-only version in the early 1990s.\n\n## Russian\nIn [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language), written confusion between the yat and ⟨е⟩ appears in the earliest records; when exactly the distinction finally disappeared in speech is a topic of debate.\nSome scholars, for example W. K. Matthews, have placed the merger of the two sounds at the earliest historical phases (the 11th century or earlier), attributing its use until 1918 to [Church Slavonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/church-slavonic-language) influence.\nWithin Russia itself, however, a consensus has found its way into university textbooks of historical grammar (e.g., [V. V. Ivanov](https://bliptext.com/articles/vyacheslav-ivanov-philologist)), that, taking all the dialects into account, the sounds remained predominantly distinct until the 18th century, at least under stress, and are distinct to this day in some localities.\nMeanwhile, the yat in [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language) usually merged in sound with instead (see below).\nThe story of the letter yat and its elimination from the [Russian alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-alphabet) makes for an interesting footnote in Russian cultural history.\nSee [Reforms of Russian orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/reforms-of-russian-orthography) for details.\nA full list of words that were written with the letter yat at the beginning of 20th century can be found [in the Russian Wikipedia](https://bliptext.com/articles/ru).\nA few inflections and common words were distinguished in spelling by ⟨е⟩ / ⟨ѣ⟩ (for example: ѣ́сть / е́сть \"to eat\" / \"(there) is\"; лѣчу́ / лечу́ \"I heal\" / \"I fly\"; синѣ́е / си́нее, \"bluer\" / \"blue\" (n.); вѣ́дѣніе / веде́ніе , \"knowledge\" / \"leadership\").\nThe retention of the letter without discussion in the [Petrine](https://bliptext.com/articles/peter-i-of-russia) reform of the Russian alphabet of 1708 indicates that it then still marked a distinct sound in the Moscow [koiné](https://bliptext.com/articles/koin-language) of the time.\nHowever, in 1748 an early proposal for partial revision of the usage of ⟨ѣ⟩ was made by [Vasily Trediakovsky](https://bliptext.com/articles/vasily-kirillovich-trediakovsky).\nThe [polymath](https://bliptext.com/articles/polymath) [Lomonosov](https://bliptext.com/articles/mikhail-lomonosov) in his 1755 grammar noted that the sound of ⟨ѣ⟩ was scarcely distinguishable from that of the letter ⟨е⟩, although he firmly defended their distinction in spelling.\nA century later (1878) the philologist Grot stated flatly in his standard Russian orthography (Русское правописаніе, Russkoje pravopisanije) that in the common language there was no difference whatsoever between their pronunciations.\nHowever, [dialectal](https://bliptext.com/articles/dialect) studies in the 20th century have shown that, in certain regional dialects, a phonemically distinct reflex of *ě has still been retained.\nSome reflexes of ⟨ѣ⟩ have further evolved into, especially in inflected forms of words where ⟨ѣ⟩ have become stressed, while the [dictionary form](https://bliptext.com/articles/lemma-morphology) has it unstressed.\nOne such example is звѣзда \"star\" against звѣзды \"stars\".\nSome dictionaries used a yat with a [diaeresis](https://bliptext.com/articles/diaeresis-diacritic), ⟨ѣ̈⟩, to denote this sound, in a similar fashion to the creation of the letter ⟨ё⟩.\nA proposal for spelling reform from the [Russian Academy of Science](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-academy-of-science) in 1911 included, among other matters, the systematic elimination of the yat, but was declined at the highest level.\nAccording to [Lev Uspensky](https://bliptext.com/articles/lev-uspensky)'s [popular](https://bliptext.com/articles/popular-science) linguistics book A Word on Words (Слово о словах), yat was \"the monster-letter, the scarecrow-letter ... which was washed with the tears of countless generations of Russian schoolchildren\".\nThe schoolchildren made use of [mnemonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/mnemonic) nonsense verses made up of words with ⟨ѣ⟩:\nThe spelling reform was promulgated by the [Provisional Government](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-provisional-government-1917) in the summer of 1917.\nHowever, it was not implemented under the prevailing conditions.\nAfter the [Bolshevik Revolution](https://bliptext.com/articles/bolshevik-revolution), the new regime took up the Provisional Drafts, implementing them minor deviations.\n[Orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) came to be viewed by many as an issue of [politics](https://bliptext.com/articles/politics), and the letter yat its primary symbol.\nÉmigré Russians generally adhered to the old spelling until after [World War II](https://bliptext.com/articles/world-war-ii); long and impassioned essays were written in its defense, as by [Ivan Ilyin](https://bliptext.com/articles/ivan-ilyin) in 1952 (О русскомъ правописаніи, O russkom pravopisanii).\nEven in the [Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/soviet-union), it is said that some printing shops continued to use the eliminated letters until their blocks of type were forcibly removed; the Academy of Sciences published its annals in the old orthography until approximately 1924.\nThe older spelling practice within Russia was ended thourgh government pressure as well as by the large-scale [campaign for literacy](https://bliptext.com/articles/likbez) in 1920s and 1930s, conducted in accordance with the new norm.\nAccording to the reform, yat was replaced by ⟨е⟩ in most words, e.g. дѣти, совѣтъ became дети, совет; for a small number of words it was replaced by ⟨и⟩ instead, according to pronunciation: онѣ ('those', feminine), однѣ ('one', feminine plural), однѣхъ, однѣмъ, однѣми (declined forms of однѣ were replaced with они, одни, одних, одним, одними.\nAfter the [dissolution of the Soviet Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/dissolution-of-the-soviet-union), as a tendency occasionally to mimic the past appeared in [Russia](https://bliptext.com/articles/russia), the old spelling became fashionable in some brand names and the like, as [archaisms](https://bliptext.com/articles/archaism), specifically as \"[sensational spellings](https://bliptext.com/articles/sensational-spelling)\".\nFor example, the name of the business newspaper [Kommersant](https://bliptext.com/articles/kommersant) appears on its masthead with a word-final [hard sign](https://bliptext.com/articles/hard-sign), which is superfluous in modern orthography: \"Коммерсантъ\".\nCalls for the reintroduction of the old spelling were heard, though not taken seriously, as supporters of the yat described it as \"that most Russian of letters\", and the \"white swan\" (бѣлый лебедь) of Russian spelling.\n# [Pre-revolution typewriter with Yat on the bottom row, between Ч and С. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Fox///Typewriter///24///with///Russian///layout.JPG]\n# [Cover of 1880 edition of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, with yat in the title; in modern orthography, дѣти is spelled дети. | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Fathers///and///Sons///cover///-///retouched.jpg]\n\n## Ukrainian\nIn [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language), yat has traditionally represented or.\nIn modern Ukrainian orthography its reflexes are represented by ⟨і⟩ or ⟨ї⟩.\nAs Ukrainian philologist Volodymyr Hlushchenko notes that initially in proto-Ukrainian tongues yat used to represent or which around 13th century transitioned into.\nYet, in some phonetic Ukrainian orthographies from the 19th century, it was used to represent both or as well as.\nThis corresponds more with the Russian pronunciation of yat rather than actual word etymologies.\nReturn to or pronunciation was initiated by the Pavlovsky \"Grammar of the Little Russian dialect\" (1818) according to Hryhoriy Pivtorak.\nWhile in the same \"Grammar\" Pavlovsky states that among Little Russians \"yat\" is pronounced as (Ѣ произносится какъ Россїйское мягкое j. на пр: ні́жный, лі́то, слідъ, тінь, сі́но.).\nThe modern Ukrainian letter ⟨є⟩ has the same phonetic function.\nSeveral Ukrainian orthographies with the different ways of using yat and without yat co-existed in the same time during the 19th century, and most of them were discarded before the 20th century.\nAfter the middle of the 19th century, orthographies without yat dominated in the Eastern part of Ukraine, and after the end of the 19th century they dominated in [Galicia](https://bliptext.com/articles/galicia-central-europe).\nHowever, in 1876–1905 the only Russian officially legalized orthography in the Eastern Ukraine was based on Russian phonetic system (with yat for ) and in the Western Ukraine (mostly in [Carpathian Ruthenia](https://bliptext.com/articles/carpathian-ruthenia)) orthography with yat for was used before 1945; in the rest of the western Ukraine (not subjected to the limitations made by the Russian Empire) the so-called \"orthographic wars\" ended up in receiving a uniformed phonetic system which replaced yat with either or (it was used officially for Ukrainian language in the Austrian Empire).\n'New yat' is a reflex of (which merged with yat in Ukrainian) in closed syllables.\nNew yat is not related to the Proto-Slavic yat, but it has frequently been represented by the same sign.\nUsing yat instead of ⟨е⟩ in this position was a common after the 12th century.\nWith the later phonological evolution of Ukrainian, both yat and new yat evolved into or.\nSome other sounds also evolved to the sound so that some Ukrainian texts from between the 17th and 19th centuries used the same letter (⟨и⟩ or yat) uniformly rather than variation between yat, new yat, ⟨и⟩, and reflex of ⟨о⟩ in closed syllables, but using yat to unify all i-sounded vowels was less common, and so 'new yat' usually means letter yat in the place of i-sounded ⟨е⟩ only.\nIn some etymology-based orthography systems of the 19th century, yat was represented by ⟨ѣ⟩ and new yat was replaced with ⟨ê⟩ (⟨e⟩ with circumflex).\nAt this same time, the Ukrainian writing system replaced yat and new yat by ⟨і⟩ or ⟨ї⟩.\n\n## Rusyn\nIn [Rusyn](https://bliptext.com/articles/rusyn-language), yat was used until 1945.\nIn modern times, some Rusyn writers and poets try to reinstate it, but this initiative is not really popular among Rusyn [intelligentsia](https://bliptext.com/articles/intelligentsia).\n\n## Romanian\nIn the old [Romanian Cyrillic alphabet](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanian-cyrillic-alphabet), the yat, called eati, was used as the diphthong.\nIt disappeared when Romanian adopted the transitional alphabet, first in [Wallachia](https://bliptext.com/articles/wallachia), then in [Moldavia](https://bliptext.com/articles/moldavia).\n\n## Serbo-Croatian\nThe Old Serbo-Croatian yat phoneme is assumed to have a phonetic value articulatory between the vowels and.\nIn the [Štokavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/tokavian) and [Čakavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/akavian) vowel systems, this phoneme lost a back vowel parallel; the tendency towards articulatory symmetry led to its merging with other phonemes.\nOn the other hand, most [Kajkavian](https://bliptext.com/articles/kajkavian) dialects did have a back vowel parallel (a reflex of *ǫ and *l̥), and both the front and back vowels were retained in most of these dialects' vowel system before merging with a reflex of a vocalized [Yer](https://bliptext.com/articles/yer) (*ь).\nThus the Kajkavian vowel system has a symmetry between front and back closed vocalic phonemes: */ẹ/ (< */ě/, */ь/) and */ọ/ (< */ǫ/, */l̥/).\nČakavian dialects utilized both possibilities of establishing symmetry of vowels by developing Ikavian and Ekavian reflexes, as well as \"guarding the old yat\" at northern borders (Buzet dialect).\nAccording to yat reflex Čakavian dialects are divided to Ikavian (mostly South Čakavian), Ekavian (North Čakavian) and mixed Ikavian-Ekavian (Middle Čakavian), in which mixed Ikavian-Ekavian reflex is conditioned by following phonemes according to [Jakubinskij's law](https://bliptext.com/articles/jakubinskij-s-law) (e.g. sled : sliditi < [PSl.](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) *slědъ : *slěditi; del : diliti < *dělъ : *děliti).\nMixed Ikavian-Ekavian Čakavian dialects have been heavily influenced by [analogy](https://bliptext.com/articles/analogy) (influence of nominative form on [oblique cases](https://bliptext.com/articles/oblique-case), infinitive on other verbal forms, word stem onto derivations etc.).\nThe only exception among Čakavian dialects is [Lastovo](https://bliptext.com/articles/lastovo) island and the village of [Janjina](https://bliptext.com/articles/janjina), with Jekavian reflex of yat.\nThe most complex development of yat has occurred in Štokavian, namely Ijekavian Štokavian dialects which are used as a dialectal basis for modern standard Serbo-Croatian variants, and that makes the reflexes of yat one of the central issues of Serbo-Croatian orthoepy and orthography.\nIn most Croatian Štokavian dialects yat has yielded diphthongal sequence of in long and short syllables.\nThe position of this diphthong is equally unstable as that of closed *, which has led to its dephonologization.\nShort diphthong has thus turned to diphonemic sequence, and long to disyllabic (triphonemic) , but that outcome is not the only one in Štokavian dialects, so the pronunciation of long yat in Neo-Štokavian dialects can be both monosyllabic (diphthongal or triphthongal) and disyllabic (triphonemic).\nHowever, that process has been completed in dialects which serve as a dialectal basis for the orthographical codification of Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian.\nIn writing, the diphthong is represented by the trigraph ⟨ije⟩ – this particular inconsistency being a remnant of the late 19th century codification efforts, which planned to redesign common standard language for Croats and Serbs.\nThis culminated in the [Novi Sad agreement](https://bliptext.com/articles/novi-sad-agreement) and \"common\" orthography and dictionary.\nDigraphic spelling of a diphthong as e.g. was used by some 19th-century Croat writers who promoted so-called \"etymological orthography\" – in fact [morpho-phonemic orthography](https://bliptext.com/articles/orthography) which was advocated by some Croatian philological schools of the time ([Zagreb philological school](https://bliptext.com/articles/zagreb-philological-school)), and which was even official during the brief period of the fascist [Independent State of Croatia](https://bliptext.com/articles/independent-state-of-croatia) (1941–1945).\nIn standard Croatian, although standard orthography is ⟨ije⟩ for long yat, standard pronunciation is.\nSerbian has two standards: Ijekavian is for long yat and Ekavian which uses for short and for long yat.\nStandard Bosnian and Montenegrin use for short and for long yat.\nDephonologization of diphthongal yat reflex could also be caused by [assimilation](https://bliptext.com/articles/assimilation-linguistics) within diphthong itself: if the first part of a diphthong assimilates secondary part, so-called secondary Ikavian reflex develops; and if the second part of a diphthong assimilates the first part secondary Ekavian reflex develops.\nMost Štokavian Ikavian dialects of Serbo-Croatian are exactly such – secondary Ikavian dialects, and from Ekavian dialects secondary are the Štokavian Ekavian dialects of Slavonian [Podravina](https://bliptext.com/articles/podravina) and most of Serbia.\nThey have a common origin with Ijekavian Štokavian dialects in a sense of developing yat reflex as diphthongal reflex.\nSome dialects also \"guard\" older yat sound, and some reflexes are probably direct from yat.\nDirect Ikavian, Ekavian and mixed reflexes of yat in Čakavian dialects are a much older phenomenon, which has some traces in written monuments and is estimated to have been completed in the 13th century.\nThe practice of using old yat phoneme in [Glagolitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/glagolitic) and [Bosnian Cyrillic](https://bliptext.com/articles/bosnian-cyrillic) writings in which Serbo-Croatian was written in the centuries that followed was a consequence of conservative scribe tradition.\nCroatian linguists also speak of two Štokavians, Western Štokavian (also called Šćakavian) which retained yat longer, and Eastern Štokavian which \"lost\" yat sooner, probably under (western) Bulgarian influences.\nAreas which bordered Kajkavian dialects mostly retained yat, areas which bordered Čakavian dialects mostly had secondary Ikavisation, and areas which bordered (western) Bulgarian dialects mostly had secondary Ekavisation.\n\"Core\" areas remained Ijekavian, although western part of the \"core\" became monosyllabic for old long yat.\nReflexes of yat in Ijekavian dialects are from the very start dependent on syllable quantity.\nAs it has already been said, standard Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian writes trigraph ⟨ije⟩ at the place of old long yat, which is in standard pronunciation manifested disyllabically (within Croatian standard monosyllabic pronunciation), and writes ⟨je⟩ at the place of short yat.\nE.g. bijȇl < [PSl.](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) *bělъ, mlijéko < *mlěko < by [[liquid metathesis](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis)](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis) from *melkò, brijȇg < *brěgъ < by [[liquid metathesis](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis)](https://bliptext.com/articles/liquid-metathesis) from *bȇrgъ, but mjȅsto < *mě̀sto, vjȅra < *vě̀ra, mjȅra < *mě̀ra.\nThere are however some limitations; in front of and (< word-final ) yat has a reflex of short.\nIn scenarios when is not substituted by, i.e. not word-finally (which is a common Štokavian isogloss), yat reflex is also different.\nE.g. grijati < *grějati, sijati < *sějati, bijaše < *bějaše; but htio : htjela < *htělъ : *htěla, letio : letjela (< *letělъ : *letěla).\nThe standard language also allows some doublets to coexist, e.g. cȉo and cijȇl < *cě̑lъ, bȉo and bijȇl < *bě́lъ.\nShort yat has reflexes of and behind in consonant clusters, e.g. brȅgovi and brjȅgovi, grehòta and grjehòta, strèlica and strjèlica, etc.\nIf short syllable with yat in the word stem lengthens due to the phonetic or morphological conditions, reflex of is preserved, e.g. djȅlo – djȇlā, nèdjelja – nȅdjēljā.\nIn modern standard Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian varieties syllables that carry yat reflexes are recognized by [alternations](https://bliptext.com/articles/apophony) in various inflected forms of the same word or in different words derived from the same stem.\nThese alternating sequences are dependent on syllable quantity.\nBeside modern reflexes they also encompass apophonic alternations inherited from [Proto-Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-slavic) and [Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-ablaut) times, which were also conditioned by quantitative alternations of root syllable, e.g. ùmrijēti – ȕmrēm, lȉti – lijévati etc. These alternations also show the difference between the diphthongal syllables with Ijekavian reflex of yat and syllables with primary phonemic sequence of, which has nothing to do with yat and which never shows alternation in inflected forms, e.g. zmìje, nijèdan, òrijent, etc.\n# [Nationalist take on the border between Serbian and Bulgarian that classifies all ekavian Bulgarian dialects as Serbian. By Aleksandar Belić (1914) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Balkan///dialects///belic///1914.jpg]\n# [Nationalist take on the border between Croatian and Serbian that classifies all ijekavian Serbian dialects as Croatian. By Tomo Matasic (1985) | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Boundary///between///Croatian///and///Serbian///according///to///Matasic///%281985%29.jpg]\n\n# Computing codes\n\n# Sources","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}

History