Talk:Ezh

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

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

January 2004 discussion

Is ezh the same as German fracture script/font "z"? -- till we *) 20:06, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The glyph is the same, yes. Morwen 20:07, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

The glyph may be the same, but the character is different. Do not use Ezh to create a fancy 'z'. — Jor 14:46, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I asked because maybe the article should elaborate a bit more on this. -- till we *) 13:27, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've added a sentence on it. — Jor 14:35, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yogh says: "Yogh was not correctly added to Unicode until Unicode 3.0."
Ezh says: "Yogh, which was not added to Unicode until Unicode 4.0."

tailed z

I don't know which of these is correct, unfortunately. — Kate | Talk 10:48, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

In certain orthographies of Old High German, there is a grapheme derived from, but used in contrast to z, e.g. in the Lombardic language. Transcriptions of Lombardic in modern typesets use the ezh letter to represent this grapheme.

Every time I've seen it, it's been a z-with-tail, which is seperatly encoded in Unicode. Are you sure there using an ezh, and not the z-with-tail? If the ezh is used, the z-with-tail should be mentioned and contrasted. --Prosfilaes 23:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt they used an ezh. This letter was invented by Pitman... over a thousand years after the Lombards. Transcription may use an ezh but this is probably because of lacking support for the blackletter z in digital typography. Jordi·✆ 00:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question is what does modern typography use for the letter? --Prosfilaes 03:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's only relevant where it does not include intentional use of the incorrect letter (this happens a lot, because it is almost impossible to get the UC to add new characters relatively soon). If an Ezh is used only because the tailed-z is badly supported, that does not mean that an Ezh is the letter. Jordi·✆ 13:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

um, we are saying in the intro "also called tailed z", so I was under the impression that the letter is, graphically, tailed z, while its phonetical value, since Pitman, is ezh. Which is the encoding for tailed z, then? (you do not mean z-ogonek, do you?) Blackletter z is just z. It doesn't contrast with a "non-blackletter z. The Lombardic transliteration uses the ezh glyph (value [s]) and the z glyph (value [ts]) .dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

we are talking about a grapheme that is used for typesetting Lombardic in modern linguistic texts. The ancient spelling probably didn't look exactly like the ezh glyph, but it is what's used for transcriptions now. dab (ᛏ) 16:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tailed z is of course just a z. Theoretically it's up to Unicode to use a tailed-z instead of the tail-less z. Sure Ezh shares the same appearance, but it should not be linked from the Lombardic alphabet page nor called by that name. I'm going to delink it. Jordi·✆ 18:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Unicode Z with hook is U+0224/U+0225. If what is used currently is the ezh, I don't think it matters whether it's "incorrect" or not; it's worth mentioning. --Prosfilaes 02:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no, no: we are talking about:

z, including blackletter z
z ogonek, or z with hook
tailed z, or the ezh symbol

tailed z doesn't look like z ogonek at all. It is used to represent a grapheme of the Lombardic alphabet. It isn't "just z" at all, it actually contrasts with z. dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Middle High German

what is this alleged MHG letter, and what does it represent? Are you sure this isn't just blackletter z? I've never heard of it. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

It's used in A Middle High German Primer by Joseph Wright, for one example. See page 24 or the whole book. --Prosfilaes 20:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to Ezh

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Ezh has never been a letter in English, but it has an English name: "Ezh". We should use this. Also, the character is not in the default fonts for IE, and we should not force people to get specialized software to use Wikipedia. For that matter, many people use university- or library-owned machines that prevent installing new software. Robert A West 19:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone feels strongly that this should be moved back to the undisplayable character, please take it to WP:RM. Robert A West 19:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezh made from Yogh?

Since the original form of the International Phonetic Alphabet showed a fair amount of compassion for printers (in those days of typesetting by hand) (e.g. by using ordinary letters set upside down as many of the symbols (e.g. turned `c' for open [o]), I used to think that ezh started as one form of yogh re-used because it was available in the type case. Anthony Appleyard 23:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English!

I only read things about Africa, Ghana and whatnot. Fact is that in middle english, the ezh is also used! Check here http://www.dsl.ac.uk , try a word like 'wicht' and read the quotations. -andy 80.129.94.195 11:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's yogh, not ezh. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly enough, it is ezh. It should be yogh, though; the ezh being used there is an artifact of the encoding, not of the standard orthography of Middle English.--Prosfilaes 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Capital

The article used to read:

It also appears in the orthography of some African languages, e.g. the Aja language of Benin and the Daghbani language of Ghana, where the uppercase variant looks like a reflected Σ, which is not in Unicode 4.0.

I removed the underlined portion, since I think Unicode would consider Ʒ and reversed-Σ to be glyph variants. --Ptcamn 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banker's three?

I've been unable to find information on the "banker's three" mentioned toward the end of this article. It's an interesting detail, but if nobody else has heard of it either I suppose that it should be removed. —Eric S. Smith 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a flat-topped 3 is mentioned in 3 (number). Many typefaces in my computer have a flat-topped 3. But try typing 1 2 ezh 4 5 using, say, Segoe UI, and you get a mess. GusTheTheatreCat (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information on this anywhere else, in fact this is the first time I've seen an explanation for the variant 3 glyph. I don't think it should be removed, but it could use some extrapolation.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.166.144 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised. I've been seeing the "flat top" 3 my whole life... but there don't seem to be many fonts that still use it: American Typewriter, Bauhaus, Blackmoor LET, Cochin, Harrington, Papyrus, Santa Fe LET, and Silom are the only ones from my 500+ font collection... -- megA (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Letter Z with hook

Of course Letter Z with hook is intended for use with Middle High German; the entry in the Unicode standard has "Middle High German" as a comment. I would hope for at least that level of checking before making changes in the article.--Prosfilaes 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright, Unicode is taciturn wrt the intended application of its characters as usual. We are to understand, I suppose, that their "z with hook" is to be used as "Z mit Unterschlinge", in spite of the symbol usually employed for this looks nothing like their "z with hook"? (An Unterschlinge is not a "hook"). The upshot of this is that online MHG sources are at a loss as to what sign they should use. See de:Ʒ, which claims that Ʒ is also used as z mit Unterschlinge for lack of an official symbol. We have the online Lexer using ჳ (Georgian we!) for lack of an adequate symbol. It appears something went wrong here. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

The article discusses ezh’s use as a pronunciation symbol, but doesn’t give the pronunciation of “ezh” itself. I’m guessing it’s /ɛʒ/, but I have no idea if that’s even close. —Frungi (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious of the same thing, how do you pronounce the symbols name? I would have expected it to be the first thing in the page but it isn't... For now I'm using the same guess as Frungi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.129.85 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's /ɛʒ/. Added. I'd put in a sound file too if I knew how. --Thnidu (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not palaeographic

§ Origin says:

As a phonetic symbol, ezh originates with Isaac Pitman's alphabet in 1847, as a z with an added hook. The symbol is based on medieval cursive forms of Latin z, evolving into the blackletter z letter. In Unicode, however, the blackletter z ("tailed z", German geschwänztes Z) is considered a glyph variant of z, and not an ezh.

In contexts where "tailed z" is used in contrast to tail-less z, notably in standard transcription of Middle High German, Unicode ʒ is sometimes used, strictly speaking incorrectly. Unicode offers ȥ "z with hook" as a grapheme for Middle High German coronal fricative instead.

Clearly ezh was not used in earlier forms of English as a distinct letter, although it is often confused with some legitimate old glyphs, especially yogh Ȝ. Therefore I am removing this page from Category:Palaeographic letter variants. --Thnidu (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Japanese

This is completely spurious. It's a superficial similarity and pointing it out in this article seems really pointless. -- Evertype·✆ 16:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is accidental, but so is the similarity to 3, yogh, etc. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J'onn

I am trying to figure out the proper phonetic code for the first name of the Martian Manhunter. It seems like it might be the same or very similar to Wiktionary:Jean#French particularly in how the J (or J') is pronounced.

There's probably more but I came across a couple examples and wanted to know if I am accurately recognize "Ezh" or not.

Wonder Woman exclaiming "J'onn!" as she hugs him in cartoon

Martian Manhunter saying "my name is J'onn J'onzz" in live-action

The pronunciation sounds pretty similar in both cases. It's definitely not the English sort of Jean with a hard J sound like "I'm putting on a pair of jeans" or "Jean Gray". I'm not just not totally sure if this is an Ezh or something else that I'm hearing here. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ろ comparison image

I've been trying to figure out a way to get the image for the comparison section to go up to it, but the furthest up I can get it is just below the infobox, is there a workaround for this or no? AlexChillOut (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

d + ʒ which is dzh forms j 66.58.219.246 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]